OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Penllwyn Railway Abandonment Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely;

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a Second time To-morrow.

Hastings Tramways Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

COAL FREIGHTAGE TO FRANCE AND ITALY.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the need of coal In France and Italy and the high cost of freightage to those countries, His
Majesty's Government will suggest that those countries should employ their Naval ships for the transport of coal?

The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I do not consider the suggestion of the hon. Member a practicable one.

WAGON CONSTRUCTION, WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Mr. TOOTILL: 83.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the number of wagons that have been orered to be built at Woolwich Arsenal and the average number turned out per week?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The reply to the first part of the question is 2,500. The rate of delivery has been adversely affected by the moulders' strike. During the week ending the 10th of this month 11 wagons were completed, and it is hoped to increase the rate of production in the course of the next few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (LORD MILNER'S MISSION).

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the sources of information which were accessible to Lord Milner's mission to Egypt, and, in particular, those sources which would have been as readily available in London as in Egypt?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Every source of information was available in Egypt save in so far as prominent Egyptians may have seen fit to refrain from expressing in detail their personal opinions to Lord Milner or the members of his Mission. Information obtainable in this country could only be supplementary to a study of conditions on the spot.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

COMMUNIST TRIALS.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government formed under M. Huszar in Hungary, with the aid and by the intervention of Sir G. Clerk and the recognition of the Supreme
Council, has the approval of His Majesty's Government in proceeding against employés and officials of the late Communist Government; whether in so doing the Hungarian Courts assume that any action of that Government was illegal and consequently that punishments and expropriations inflicted by that Government were criminal acts which expose its agents to charges of murder, embezzlement, and the like; and whether he will instruct the representatives of His Britannic Majesty in Hungary to mitigate the application of this legal theory and to represent to M. Huszar's Government the advantages of clemency and moderation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: His Majesty s Government do not control the policy of the Hungarian Government in regard to internal affairs. They have no information to show that the Hungarian Government have adopted the general principle indicated in the second part of the question.
His Majesty's High Commissioner in Budapest has reported that the trials of communists which have so far taken place have been conducted fairly and in due legal form, and there is no reason to anticipate that the Hungarian Government will alter their practice in this respect.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that our representatives are throwing their weight on the side of humanity in this case?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can assure the House that His Majesty's representative has been instructed to use his influence to moderate the animosities that naturally arise in a country now going through the state that Hungary is going through.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Thank you.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the possibility of our representative in Buda Pesth visiting the internment camps?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of new questions.

HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir George Clerk, as the representative of the Supreme Council, extended recognition to the Hungarian Government on certain terms; whether these terms included the holding of free elections; and whether, in view of the fact that the trade unionist minister Peyer resigned as a protest against the general state of terror, and that the Social Democrats abstained from voting at the elections because in their opinion guarantees for free elections were absent, he will state whether the conditions under which the Hungarian Government was recognised have been observed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government have no information to show that the situation is as implied in the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENTS.

Mr. LAWSON: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Governments in the territories of the former Russian Empire are now at peace with this country and with what Governments we are now at war!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This country is at peace with all the States which were formerly part of the Russian Empire and have established independent Governments.

BRITISH PASSPORTS (VISE FROM UNITED STATES).

Sir H. BRITTA IN: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say at what date the necessity for the British visé was withdrawn on British passports held by British subjects returning to Great Britain from the United States?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understand from the War Office, which Department was at the time in charge of Passport Control, that instructions in this sense were issued on 21st May last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

RHINELAND COMMISSION.

Mr. RAPER: 7.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state when it is anticipated that the new import and export taxes will be fixed by Germany; and whether the Rhineland Commission have plenary powers for confirming or modifying same?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): As I explained in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member on February 17th, the existing import duties in Germany must remain in force for at least six months from the date when the Treaty came into force. Some of the duties are, moreover, maintained in operation by the Treaty for 36 months. I am not aware that the German Government have yet taken any steps to fix the duties which will be leviable after the expiration of these periods, nor do I know of any proposal to impose duties on exports. As regards the last part of the question, no new German laws or regulations can come into force in the occupied territory until they have received the approval of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission.

Mr. RAPER: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the imposition of the gold tax on goods imported into the occupied territory of Germany as from 1st January of this year was agreed by the Rhineland Commission on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and how many days' notice was given to commercial firms who have been encouraged to open up trade with these districts?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The collection of Customs Duties on a gold basis in the occupied territory as from 1st January was authorised by the Inter-Allied Rhine-land High Commission. No official notice was given; but I believe it had been generally known among traders for some time previously that the system of levying duties on a gold basis already in Operation in unoccupied Germany would probably soon be extended to occupied territory. As regards cases of hardship I am afraid I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to the question which the hon. Member asked on 17th February.

Mr. RAPER: May I ask whether or not it is the fact that the United States Government refuse to agree to the same date for the imposition of the gold tax, and whether they have had a longer notice?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MILITARY SENTENCES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government will recommend His Majesty to give some reduction of the sentences which military prisoners are serving in order to mark by an act of Royal clemency the ratification of peace?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): As already stated on previous occasions, the Government decided after very careful consideration not to grant a general amnesty. The sentences of soldiers are, however, constantly reviewed, and in this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on the 10th December last to the hon. Member for Whitechapel.

Mr. LENG-STURROCK: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that many of the prisoners are presently undergoing sentences for offences committed in the field, and in view of the fact of the ending of conscription, the War Office will not favourably consider bringing in some measure of general amnesty?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I understand all the circumstances have been fully considered, but I will represent the views of my bon. Friend.

TROOPS IN RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many British troops there are in Russia, and what steps he is taking for their protection?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The numbers of British troops in Russia are:—
Siberia, 103 all ranks.
South Russia, 1,750 all ranks, including the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
The Siberian Mission are all concentrated at Vladivostok and, are being withdrawn
home, as facilities offer. In view of the presence of American, Czech and Japanese troops at Vladivostok, they are in no danger. As regards the Mission in South Russia, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member of the reply to the question of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on the 8th March.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask how that agrees with the answer we have just received from the representative of the Foreign Office to the effect that we are at war with no State in Russia?

RAILWAY TICKET FACILITIES.

Lieut. - Colonel W. GUINNESS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army when not travelling on duty can still obtain railway tickets at a rate of only one-third of that payable by the general public; whether this concession only dates from the time of the War; whether in the last month for which returns are available it was shown to be adding to the railway deficit at the rate of £1,896,000 per annum; and whether, in view of the urgent need of national economy, he will now return to the pre-war arrangement under which the Army when not on duty paid the same railway fares as members of the general public?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. and gallant Member is misinformed as to prewar arrangements. Officers proceeding on leave from certain military stations to London paid single fare for the double journey; other ranks proceeding to their homes on furlough could obtain concession vouchers on the same lines War concessions for leave-travelling cease on the 31st March, 1920. From the 1st April the railway companies, with the consent of the Ministry of Transport, have agreed to reintroduce pre-war arrangements as a traffic concession.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the issue of vouchers for railway tickets is being and has been considerably abused and can he not tighten up the regulations on the subject?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, the War Office is aware that there has been abuse and that numbers of men in uniform have been seen at stations where it is very doubtful they had any right to be.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the remaining privilege be limited to certain, stations as before the War?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like notice of that.

ROYAL ARMY SEEVICK CORPS (YOUNG SOLDIER).

Mr. TOOTILL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, he is aware that Private A. E. Dugdale, No. 45,587, Royal Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport), 8, Mobilisation Camp, Sling Camp, Bulford, Salisbury, is under 18 years of age and joined the Army without his parents' consent; whether he is aware that his father has written to the commanding officer of his battalion and has received no reply to his communications; and whether he will have inquiries made into this case with a view to this young' soldier's release?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It has been ascertained that Private Dugdale enlisted without his parents' consent, and that on attestation he stated that he was born on the 24th January, 1901. Inquiries are proceeding, arid the question of his release from the Army will be carefully considered.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS, MESOPOTAMIA.

Sir W. CHEYNE: 17.
asked the Secretary, of State for War if he has been able to make any further arrangements to relieve the medical officers, of the Royal Army Medical Corps in Mesopotamia (Special Reserve and Territorial Force) who have been there for some years; if he has satisfied himself that all these officers are required; if he is aware that at one centre, where five medical officers and five subordinates are stationed, it is stated that the medical work of each' officer during the last six months has averaged 10 minutes per day, and that' for the last seven weeks prior to the 24th January they had not received single patient; and whether, considering the great injury to their health and their future prospects resulting from their prolonged residence in Mesopotamia, he will use every endeavour to secure their transfer elsewhere?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Every endeavour continues to he made to relieve medical officers of the Special Reserve
and Territorial Force serving in Mesopotamia who, on account of age, length of service in the East and personal hardship are considered by the General Officer Commanding to be eligible for release. The establishments are being reduced to the greatest possible extent, having regard to the care of the sick and the protection of the garrison; and Regular Royal Army Medical Corps officers are being sent out as far as the available resources and the heavy demands to be met elsewhere permit.
I am not aware of the particular cases mentioned, but if details are supplied I will obtain a full report. At the same time, however, I would point out that in Mesopotamia and Persia isolated bodies of troops are stationed, and these require to be provided with medical personnel, as the distances preclude the despatch of medical officers at short notice should their services at any time be urgently required.

Captain ELLIOT: Can they not be relieved by native medical officers, who are in many cases actually being paid more than white officers who are doing the same work?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not able to answer that without notice.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these young officers are desirous of returning home in order that they may continue their course in the University and medical schools?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will represent that.

Mr. R. McLAREN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider three hot seasons a sufficient period to be there from a medical point of view, and could he not at once substitute Regular medical men for these officers?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will represent that also.

OFFICERS DISCHAK'GED MEDICALLY UNFIT.

Mr. WALLACE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, contrary to Army practice, officers discharged as medically unfit are having their pay withheld from the date of leaving hospital to the date of their discharge from the Army; and, if so, whether he will take
steps to see that the official statement on this matter is carried out?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No pay is withheld, as the date of demobilisation and the date of leaving hospital are coincident.

SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL (VISITS).

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to withdraw the cheap travelling facilities allowed to relatives visiting wounded soldiers in hospital in the United Kingdom; whether this will cause special hardship to those who have had to suffer most; and, if so, whether the decision can be reconsidered, at any rate, in special cases?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: This was a special War concession, which it has been decided to withdraw at the end of this present month.

Viscount CURZON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this imposes a considerable hardship on men who have had to suffer most? Could he not give some consideration to special cases?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

GUARDS REGIMENTS (UNIFORM).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been arrived at concerning the future uniform to be adopted by the Guards regiments?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The question is still under consideration, and a decision has not yet been reached.

COMMISSIONS (REGULAR ARMY).

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain Manley Angell James, V.C, M.C., is a candidate for a commission in the Regular Army, and that this officer is only 23 years of age and was three times wounded; and whether, in view of this officer's exceptional service, a vacancy may be made for him and one correspondingly less vacancy allotted in the next Sandhurst examination?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I will ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone this question so that the matter may receive fuller consideration. Primâ facie, I should say that with these qualifications the officer in question should have a very good chance of being included.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when a decision may be reached, and is he aware that a considerable number of officers are refusing permanent employment in the hope that they eventually will be given a commission?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will do my utmost to expedite the decision. I certainly think it should be given within a month of the present time.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.

Major COPE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to prolong the existence of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, and to permit that body to set up retail establishments in towns where sailors and soldiers and airmen are stationed; and, if so, has he considered the effects of such a course on individual retailers?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remaining parts, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Epping.

Commander Viscount CURZON: What will be done with the Navy and Army Canteen Board fund?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not think that question arises.

Sir J. BUTCHER: May we rest assured that these establishments of the Navy and Army Canteen Board will not be set' up in the provinces in competition with the ordinary shopkeepers and private retailers?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: That is exactly the policy that is being pursued. They are being taken away where they have been established outside the camp areas, but there must be some competition, of course.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

7TH BATTALION BLACK WATCH.

Mr. WALLACE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the feeling aroused in Fifeshire through the reported decision of the War Office to disband the 7th Black Watch Territorial Battalion, and in its place to assign to Fifeshire two companies of Royal Engineers with headquarters in Aberdeen; and whether, before a final decision is taken by his Department, he will receive a deputation from the Fife Territorial Association on the subject?

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the War Office to disband the 7th Battalion Black Watch and to substitute for it two companies of Territorial Engineers belonging to a battalion having its headquarters at Aberdeen, thus wiping out a very distinguished battalion and also allotting no Territorial representation whatever in Fife of the local regiment, the Black Watch, and so depriving all men in the county of Fife who are desirous of serving in the Territorial infantry of any opportunity of doing so within their own county?

Sir. A. WILLIAMSON: No definite decision has been reached to disband this battalion. The whole matter is at present under discussion and will receive the Secretary of State's personal consideration.

Mr. WALLACE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other part of the question, namely, whether he will receive a deputation from the Fife Territorial Association?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not quite sure that I can give a definite answer upon that, but if the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will see whether it is possible to accede to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

DECORATIONS.

Viscount CURZON: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether the officers and men of the Royal Air Force mentioned in despatches for their services, whether working with the Royal Navy or the Army, will be awarded the bronze oak leaf similar to that awarded to the Army?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Tryon): The reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative.

RIVER TYNE POLICE FORCE.

Major BARNES: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the River Tyne Police Force was not included in the Desborough recommendations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): As I pointed out yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wallsend, the maintenance of the Tyne River Police does not fall on public funds, and the force is not subject to Government in spection, and probably these considerations influenced the Committee.

Major BARNES: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will make regulations as to the government, mutual aid, pay, allowances, pensions, clothing, and conditions of service of the River Tyne Police Force?

Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Wallsend.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS).

Mr. LAWSON: 29.
asked the Home Secretary what are the names of the organisations, political or industrial, at whose meetings detectives of the Metropolitan police have been present during the months of January and February, 1920; what is the approximate monthly cost of this Service; and against what Vote it is charged?

Mr. SHORTT: Meetings of various organisations are attended by Metropolitain police officers in plain clothes. It would be undesirable in the public interest to furnish a list of the meetings that have been so attended. No special cost is incurred beyond the ordinary pay of police officers, which comes out of the Metropolitan Police Fund.

Colonel WEDGWOQD: Are the speeches written out in full, and sent to the Home Office, or are they filed immediately?

Mr. SHORTT: That depends upon circumstances.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I have an answer to the last part of the question—against what Vote is this expense charged?

Mr. SHORTT: I have already said it comes under the Metropolitan Police Fund, which means the Home Office.

Mr. LAWSON: Are these men instructed to report the speeches of hon. Members of this House at the same time?

Mr. SHORTT: They have no special instructions, except where the police authorities think it necessary to attend certain meetings.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do they attend Coalition meetings?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware than an hon. Member of this House was so reported a week or two ago?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no doubt that was so. That has happened to many more.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Will they be at the meeting of the Coalition on Thursday?

Mr. SHORTT: That depends on the police authorities.

STRATFORD POLICE COURT (NELLIE SMITH).

Major BARNES: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether it has been brought to his notice that, in the case of Nellie, or Trallie, Smith, brought before the magistrates at the Stratford police court on the 12th ultimo, the statement is incorrect that it was impossible to trace either the girl's friends or her address; whether he is aware that within three hours of the girl's arrest, at 11 a.m., two police officers visited the residence of the child's parents; if so, why a child of 14 who was afterwards found to be innocent was kept in custody; whether Section 94 of the Children Act, 1908, was complied with; if so, in what manner; and, if not, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. SHORTT: The statement referred to is correct. The address given by the girl was found to be false. About 3.30, at the suggestion of a local tradesman, the police visited a place occupied by caravans, in which it was eventually found that the girl lived, but they could then get no information about her, though one of the persons questioned proved afterwards to be her sister. The girl was kept in custody because she was charged with theft, nothing could be learned of her home and family, and she herself stated she had been sent by her parents to steal. The police appear to me to have complied with Section 94 of the Children Act, and I do not propose to take any further action in the matter.

HOME OFFICE (PKINTING DEPARTMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 32.
asked the Home Secretary the number of men employed in the Printing Department of the Home Office; whether these men are officers or craftsmen; and whether they are paid trade union rates of wages?

Mr. SHORTT: There is no Printing Department in the Home, Office, but in the Police Printing Department at New Scotland Yard there are 31 men employed. Two are temporary employees; all the rest are permanent officers who, in addition to being pensionable, enjoy the usual benefits of Civil Service employment in respect of holidays, sick leave, etc. Their wages and conditions of service have recently been revised, and are not less favourable than those of similar classes of craftsmen in a fair house in the trade.

WOMEN'S POLICE PATROL.

Sir J. D. REES: 33.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of Reginald Hunt, fireman, sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour on a charge brought against him by a member of the Women's Patrol who, when in plain clothes, had entered into conversation with him in Epping Forest, and stated that he subsequently seized her arm; and whether the action of the prosecutrix in this case is in accordance with the instructions of the Home Office?

Mr. SHORTT: This policewoman and another were sent to patrol in and about Epping Forest on account of complaints that women were constantly being molested by men in that neighbourhood. She did not enter into conversation with the prisoner; but was accosted by him. He made a suggestion to her, and took her by the arm. She was acting in accordance with instructions, and there was nothing in her conduct open to any censure.

Sir J. D. REES: Unless the record discloses something more serious than is reported in the Press, does he think it is quite right that a policewoman in plain petticoats should answer a man, at any rate, who speaks to her, and then subsequently hand him over, because he endeavours to improve the occasion and seizes her arm?

Mr. SHORTT: The Court heard the whole of the evidence and was satisfied.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the facts are made public, because on the record of the case so little was shown against the man's conduct—nothing but seizing the woman's arm?

Mr. SHORTT: I have received no complaint except from the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the system of agents provocateurs be continued?

Mr. SHORTT: It has not begun to exist.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABLEMENT.

Major COHEN: 34.
asked the Pensions Minister whether paragraph (3) (1, b) of the Royal Warrant for the pensions of soldiers disabled, and of the families and dependants of soldiers deceased in consequence of the Great War, refers to men who have lost both legs below the knee; and, if it does not refer to such men, will he have the wording of this paragraph altered in order that there may be no doubt whatsoever as to what degree of disability is actually meant, so that a man's hopes may not be raised unduly?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): Article (3) (1, b) of the Royal Warrant embodies a special concession which is granted only to a man who has suffered one of the three severest forms of disablement, namely, loss of both legs or of both arms, or total loss of eyesight. Strictly interpreted, loss of both legs implies amputation of both legs through the thigh, but in practice the concession has been extended, with Treasury approval, to cases where there is loss of one foot, provided that the other amputation is above or through the knee. An amendment of the Warrant is not considered to be necessary.

SECURITY OF TENURE (SCOTLAND).

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 36.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any decision has yet been come to as to the application to Scotland of the promised Bill to give security of tenure to tenant farmers?

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 39.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is an increasing number of tenants in Scotland receiving notices to quit owing to the sale of their farms; and whether, in these circumstances, he can hold out any hopes that a Bill giving security of tenure to agricultural tenants in Scotland will shortly be introduced?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am not aware of any appreciable increase in the number of notices to quit. As regards the Bill, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friends to the replies given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, to which I am not, as yet, in a position to add.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture told us nothing at all about Scotland?

Mr. MUNRO: I am not quite sure what my hon. and gallant Friend desires to know about Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will it be a separate Bill for Scotland?

Mr. MUNRO: That is a matter for consideration. My present view is that Scotland might with advantage come within the provisions of the English Bill. I am, however, quite prepared to consider any representations on the subject that may be made by my hon. Friends.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very distinct feeling to the contrary in Scotland, and that there should be a separate Bill for Scotland?

Mr. MUNRO: I have not yet reached any concluded opinion on the subject, and I shall be glad to receive any representations.

Major W. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the case of Scotland will be considered, whether there be one or two Bills, contemporaneously with that of England?

Mr. MUNRO: I have no hesitation in giving that undertaking. I cannot state the precise moment for consideration, but there will be no avoidable delay.

EX-SOLDIERS.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND).

Mr. W. SHAW: 38.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the approximate acreage of land purchased by the Government for the settlement of ex-soldiers in the Counties of Perth, Forfar and Kincardine; the number of holdings which it is proposed to establish in the respective counties; the number of applicants for holdings; and the number of applicants already settled?

Mr. MUNRO: The area of the properties purchased by the Board in the three counties referred to is approximately 3,480 acres. On these properties it is proposed to establish 87 small holdings, of which 34, 30 and 23, respectively, are in Perth, Forfar and Kincardine. The number of applicants for small holdings in these counties is 389, of whom 36 have already been settled on the properties referred to and 32 have been settled on lands secured under the procedure of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts.

Major M. WOOD: 35
asked the Secretary for Scotland on what principle the Scottish Board of Agriculture propose
to fix the rents for ex-service men who receive holdings under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919; and whether care will be taken that rents are fixed, not on a basis of the total costs which the Board may incur in purchasing the land and converting it into small holdings, but by consideration of what the tenants can reasonably be expected to pay if they are to make a living?

Mr. MUNRO: The Board are required by the Statute to let the holdings at a rent which in their opinion is reasonable. They take into account the value of the land, buildings and fences and fix the rents on the basis laid down by the Statute. The Board are satisfied that the rents as fixed by them will not prejudice the holder's chances of making a satisfactory living.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will these rents be subject to review by the court?

Mr. MUNRO: I will consider that. I am not quite certain.

BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 40.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of two Swedes who were sentenced in Leith to six months' imprisonment for being in possession of pamphlets alleged to advocate Bolshevism; and whether, in view of the probability of these two Swedes being unaware of the Defence of the Realm Regulations under which they were convicted and of the fact that none of the pamphlets had been distributed, he will have the case reconsidered with a view to the release of the men?

Mr. MUNRO: My attention has been called to the case in question by petitions from the prisoners, and I have been in communication with the Sheriff. His report has been submitted, and is now r ceiving my consideration.

Mr. RAPER: Have any representations been received in this matter from the Swedish Minister, or has the right hon. Gentleman received any notice from the Swedish Legation?

Mr. MUNRO: Speaking from recollection, I do not think I have received any representations from the Swedish Legation.

Mr. DOYLE: Is it not the fact that the most insidious form of Bolshevic propaganda is that carried out by certain foreigners who have access to these ports?

Mr. MUNRO: I quite agree with the-description that my hon. Friend has given of this propaganda. The particular set of circumstances of this case are at present being considered by me.

LEWIS (SCOTTISH TRADES UNIOIT CONGRESS).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 41.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a resolution from the Parliamentary Committee of the Scottish Trades Union Congress expressing its indignation at the-dismissal from employment of a large number of ex-service men and others in the Island of Lewis because other ox-servicemen in need of lands and houses have-occupied certain parts of farms alleged to be the property of Lord Loverhulme; and whether he will give an undertaking that the Island of Lewis shall be made-no exception in the administration of the Land Settlement and other Acts of Parliament passed for the purpose of settling ex-service men and others on the land, and that no further delay shall take place-in making the larger farms on the island available for small holdings and homes for such of the people of Lewis as desire, land?

Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am at present in communication with Lord Leverhulme in regard to the position in the Lews, the difficulties of which I fully appreciate. I am endeavouring to find the solution which will be most in the interest of the community as a whole.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

FAT CATTLE, FORFARSHIRE.

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 37.
asked the-Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that there is dissatisfaction among the farming community in Forfarshire owing to the delay in granting licences for fat cattle for slaughter in Glasgow; if he is aware that considerable numbers of unfinished Irish store cattle are being slaughtered in Glasgow for beef; and if he will take steps to have both these matters inquired into and remedied?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that owing to unexpectedly large arrivals a certain number of fat cattle were recently held up for a few days in Glasgow, but that steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of this delay. Every endeavour is made to prevent the slaughter of immature cattle, and I cannot agree that the statement made in the second part of the question is correct. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member will supply me with detailed information on the subject the matter shall be investigated.

MEAT IMPORTED (PRICES).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 42.
asked the Food Controller whether home-grown or imported meat has risen most in price since 1914; and the percentage of advance in each case?

Mr. McCURDY: The percentage increase in the price of home-grown and imported beef is practically the same—106 per cent. and 108 per cent. There is a considerable divergence in the percentage increase of home-grown and imported mutton, the former figure being 103 per cent. and the latter 91 per cent. This divergence is mainly due to the reduction in price effected to meet the temporary glut of Australasian supplies.

BREAD.

Mr. CLOUGH: 43.
asked the Food Controller whether, in view of the rise in the price of bread, he proposes to initiate any propaganda to impress upon the public the need for stringent economy in the use of this commodity?

Mr. McCURDY: It is not proposed at present to undertake any special propaganda on this subject. I hope that the advance which must necessarily be made in the price of bread will itself act as a reminder of the need for economy.

Mr. MYERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that bread is still the staple diet of a large section of our population, and that any reduction in quantity or deterioratoin in quality is the short cut to starvation?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes, I think we are all aware of those facts.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 65.
asked the Minister of Food what increase in the retail price of bread is probable in consequence of the reduction of the bread subsidy?

Mr. McCURDY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on Thursday, March 11th, to the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham.

MEAT CONTROL (SLAUGHTER CHARGES).

Lieut. - Colonel W. GUINNESS: 66.
asked the Minister of Food what charges are imposed, per cwt., on cattle, sheep, and pigs sold for slaughter; whether these charges have lately been raised; what total amount per month is produced by these charges; and whether there is any surplus after providing for expenses of administration?

Mr. McCURDY: The gross charge on cattle at the present time is 17s. per cwt., and that on sheep 2½d. per lb., plus 1s. 6d. per head. No charges are collected on pigs. The charge on cattle was increased from 13s. to 17s. per cwt. on the 27th February, 1920. The total amount which is produced by these charges varies considerably from month to month according to the numbers of cattle and sheep which are sent into market, and according to the sliding scale of prices paid to the farmers. It is not anticipated that there will be any surplus after providing for expenses of administration.

Mr. LAMBERT: What is the total amount produced by these charges?

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: May I ask whether when control goes all these charges will entirely disappear?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his administration is not unduly extravagent? It works out in this respect at 2d. per lb.

Mr. McCURDY: It would be impossible within the limits of time permissible for an answer to a supplementary question to properly deal with the question of these charges which are not net charges. For instance, instead of 17s., only 3s. per cwt. is actually collected on cattle, and instead of 2d. per lb. on sheep only ¼d. per lb. is paid out by the Department, The system is of a somewhat complicated character and I shall be very happy to give full
information to hon. Members who are interested if they will give notice of a question or write to me.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is not the cost of 2d. per lb. borne by the consumer in the price he pays?

Mr. McCURDY: I must ask for notice of that.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: Will these charges disappear when control is removed?

Mr. McCURDY: I assume so.

SUGAR.

Mr. WALLACE: 67.
asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the shortage of sugar for domestic purposes, he will take steps to restrict the supplies of sugar used for sweets and fancy cakes?

Mr. McCURDY: The amount of sugar allotted to confectioners has already been reduced by one-half. The suggestion of my hon. Friend with regard to the use of sugar for sweets and fancy cakes is one which I am already considering, with a view to limiting the use of sugar for purposes of luxury or extravagance.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the course of employment before he cuts off further supplies of sugar from the confectionery trade?

Mr. WALLACE: Will he also consider its importance to child life?

Mr. McCURDY: In considering a reduction of the amount of sugar allotted to confectioners we have been very strongly influenced by the danger arising from throwing people out of employment, and by the fact that sweets of the cheaper variety are a substantial addition to the sugar ration of the juvenile population. What we propose to take steps to deal with is the use of sugar for fancy cakes and other purposes of luxury.

Mr. ATKEY: 68.
asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that March is the best month for the making of home-made marmalade; and whether he to allocate special supplies of sugar for jam making to be available during that month, either in whole or in. part, to
those who desire to utilise it for the purpose of making marmalade?

Mr. McCURDY: I am aware that marmalade is usually made at this time of year, but it has not been found possible to allocate special supplies of sugar for its domestic manufacture. The issue of sugar for domestic jam-making is intended mainly for the preservation of summer and autumn fruits grown in this country. It would not, in any case, be practicable to arrange for any appreciable increase in the supplies of sugar to be in the hands of retailers during the present month.

Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: In making the allowance for jam-making, will purchasers of fruit be considered as well as growers of fruit?

Mr. McCURDY: I should like notice of that question. I think that is arranged for.

RABBITS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 69.
asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Government purchased from Australia in 1917–18 50,000,000 rabbits, and that the normal number of imported frozen rabbits to England before the War was 21,000,000; that 10,000,000 rabbits are on the way and awaiting shipment in Australia; that the Ministry of Food have issued an Order controlling the price of rabbits to be sold by wholesaler to retailer, with the skin on, at large rabbits per crate 46s., young rabbits 38s., small rabbits per crate 28s.; that objection is taken to the method adopted, and that if the present Order is maintained the packers of rabbits in Australia will cease operations as far as treating the carcase for export is concerned; that the rabbit is an absolute necessity for the working classes in this country; that at the present time rabbits are not being packed in Australia on account of the control Order that the skin not being food should be excluded from the control and only a maximum price be fixed for the skinned carcase, and the wholesaler and retailer be allowed to fix their price in accordance with the fixed price of the selling of meat and the value of the skin; that the value of the skin cannot be fixed, as it fluctuates with the skin markets of the world; that the cessation of export of rabbits from Australia is preventing many thousands of returned soldiers from getting a living in that country; and, in
consequence of the English rabbits being de-controlled, if the Australians cease to export rabbits the price of the British rabbits next autumn will be excessive, will he take action in the matter?

Mr. McCURDY: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. The terms of the Imported Rabbits Order and the maximum prices named in the Schedule to the Order were drawn up in consultation with an advisory committee on which importers, wholesale merchants and retail traders were represented, and in agreement with the Agents-General for New South Wales and Queensland. A maximum selling price per crate was specially arranged in order to meet the wishes of the representatives of the importing merchants and the custom of the trade. Representations on the lines suggested in the remainder of the question have been made to the Ministry of Food by two firms of packers who, however, decline an invitation to submit their costs for investigation by the Costings Branch of the Ministry. Great difficulty is experienced in obtaining accurate information as to the conditions of the trade in imported Australian rabbits. The Food Controller will watch the effect of the Order very care-fully, and will be prepared to consider its revision if experience proves that it it is likely to be detrimental to the British consumer.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the Imported Rabbits Order is part of the Defence of the Realm?

Mr. McCURDY: For the moment the powers under which the work of the Ministry of Food is carried on are conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act.

TURKEY.

Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHY: 45 and 46.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is prepared to lay all the facts before the House of Commons and to give an opportunity for a discussion before committing the country to fresh military operations in Asia Minor;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the disquiet and apprehension still existing in India among Moslems on account of the continued reports to the effect that portions of the
former Turkish Empire inhabited by a majority of Turks are to be placed under alien rule; and when he proposes to make a statement in the House of Commons on the Turkish Question other than that aspect of it dealing with Constantinople?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): These questions were very fully discussed in Debate on the 26th of February last, and I cannot at present add anything to what was said on that occasion.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this House will have an opportunity of discussing the subject before military operations, large or small, are commenced?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We have no intention whatever of engaging in any military operations, but circumstances might arise which might make it necessary to do so, and it would be quite impossible to discuss it here.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House then be informed at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly it will. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite mistaken if he thinks that we contemplate any use of force at this moment.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Indian aspect of this highly important question has not really received much attention in this House, and that Mahomedans, who are a very large proportion of the subjects of the King, really feel most acutely about it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I quite realise that. But the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that this was not considered by the House. A very large part of the Debate was taken up in dealing with this very aspect of the case.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that portion of the Debate did not include the Members who have had practical experience of Mahomedans and of India?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot remember the names of all those who took part in the Debate, but the subject was certainly very fully discussed.

AUSTRIA-HTJNGAEY (NEW STATES).

Mr. LAWSON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by the Allies to impress upon Poland, Roumania, and the new States created out of Austria-Hungary the need for the demobilisation of the million men stated by the Supreme Council to be still under arms in those countries?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Demobilisation in the countries referred to must be dependent on the re-establishment of peaceful relations with their neighbours, to the attainment of which the Supreme Council has been devoting every effort.

INCOME TAX.

COMMITTEE HECOMMENDATIONB.

Mr. DOYLE: 49
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he can hold out any hope that the recommendations of the Committee dealing with Income Tax reform will be dealt with in the next Budget, and more especially with that proposing that such tax shall only begin when the income is £250 per year; and if it is his intention to apply the principle of graduation to all incomes over the sum named; (2) if he will state for how long it is his intention to maintain the excess profits tax which is hampering productive and commercial enterprise?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether male Income Tax payers are entitled under certain conditions to an abatement of £50 in consideration of keeping a housekeeper; and whether he will extend this privilege to female Income Tax payers who are in many cases obliged to work for their own living and are no less in need of keeping a housekeeper out of a small income?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I must ask my hon. Friends to restrain their natural curiosity until the Budget is opened.

Mr. HAROLD BRIGGS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many firms find considerable difficulty in obtaining ready money to pay these taxes, and will he favourably coasider the question that short-dated mortgages should be issued to these firms?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to the answer I have already given.

Mr. ATKEY: Will the Committee sitting to consider Income Tax reform also take into account the duplication of collectors of the tax—does that come within the scope of their reference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Royal Commission on Income Tax has reported, and if the hon. Member will wait a very short time he will have their Report in his hands.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When can we expect that Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is another question on that later.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to circulate the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the Report will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow afternoon. In the short time available to me since I received a copy of the Report, I have been unable to complete my study of it, but I have read enough to assure myself of its great value, and I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sense of obligation to Lord Colwyn and the other Commissioners for the public service which they have rendered.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the full evidence also be published? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have only had extracts up to the present?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of that. I think the evidence will be published, but it certainly will not be in the hands of Members to-morrow afternoon when the Report will be. It takes much longer to print the evidence.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is published before the Budget is introduced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will see what can be done.

Colonel NEWMAN: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the number of effective Income Tax payers for the financial year ending 5th April, 1919; and will he say from how many of this number it was found impossible
to obtain payment of tax due in respect of the year 1918–19, and the total revenue lost in consequence?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of effective Income Tax payers for the year ended 5th April, 1919, is estimated at 3,406,000. The information asked for in the second part of the question is not available, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the proportion of duty lost is very small.

BURGLARIES AND THEFTS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the many burglaries and thefts of jewellery, plate, etc., and other articles of value, including motor cars, in order to make the commission of these offences and the disposal of the goods less easy and the offenders more easily traced, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation requiring a form of certificate of origin showing names of previous owner or owners, and subject to a revenue stamp of so many shillings in the pound, to be filled in, verified by the signature of a police officer to be appointed, or of some responsible person, and presented upon the sale of all such articles secondhand?

Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I believe the Commissioner of Police has made suggestions to the Ministry of Transport as to the registration of motor cars which he thinks might make the disposal of stolen cars more difficult than it is at present. With regard to plate and jewellery, it does not appear that any system of registration would be practicable or effective for this purpose.

BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.

Mr. HOLMES: 53
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the new essential industry which would have been liquidated if the Government had not agreed to take shares in the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company, Limited; what article is made by that company which established firms are not already making or have made offer to the Government to make;
(2) which Minister of the Crown will have to give his assent before debentures can be issued on the security of the assets of the new British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Company, Limited; and whether, in view of what has already occurred, he will undertake that no such consent will be given until Parliament has been consulted;
(3) what was the total of the debentures and the other charges on the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company, Limited, held by the Government Departments and by private individuals on 1st January last; and what were the names of the Government Departments and the individuals, respectively, and the amounts held by them;
(4) if, having regard to the statement made by him that the standing of the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Company, Limited, was not such that it could have raised the necessary funds to continue its undertaking if the liability to the Government had been paid off, he will state what are the reasons and calculations that convinced him that the interests of the Government and the taxpayers' money would be adequately protected by the acceptance of preference shares in place of debentures?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The industry is the manufacture of cellulose acetate for which the Company was formed during the War, and for which its works will be available to the Government in case of future necessity. I have no knowledge of the extent, if any, to which articles to be made by the Company during peace are now being made by other companies. The agreement with the Company provides that the consent of the Minister of Munitions must be obtained before debentures can be issued. I am not prepared to undertake that Parliament should be consulted before any such eon-sent is given. The answer to the first part of the third question is £2,270,000. Of this amount the Ministry of Munitions held £1,450,000 on their own behalf, £500,000 as trustee for the London County, Westminster and Parr's Bank, and £200,000 as trustee for the Chilworth Gunpowder Company. The remaining £120,000 were held by private persons, a list of whose names and holdings appeared in Appendix A of the Report of Lord Sumner's Committee, but I do not know
whether there has been any variation in this list since the date of that Report. As regards the last question, what I stated was that experience had shown that the previous arrangement described in my reply to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for East Grinstead, on the 2nd instant, made it impossible for the Company to raise the necessary funds to continue its undertaking. As I have already explained I am satisfied that it would not be in the interests of the Government or the taxpayer to force the Company into liquidation, and that the public interests are best protected by the arrangements now made.

Mr. HOOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on what authority he tells this House he is not prepared to consult the House before investing one and a half millions of the country's money in this concern?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not said that.

Mr. SPENCER: What is the difference between investing in this company and investing a like amount, or a greater sum, in the mines of this country?

HOUSING.

LOCAL BONDS (PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN).

Colonel NEWMAN: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any scheme for popularising issues of housing bonds is under contemplation; and, if so, will the fact be emphasised that the houses for which the money is required are being built for all sections of the population, and that the Ministry of Health has instructions from the Government to watch closely the local authority in its allocation of houses built under the Housing Acts, 1919?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): It is expected that local authorities throughout the country will open a publicity campaign in connection with the issue of local bonds for housing immediately after Easter, and suggestions for the campaign have been communicated to local authorities, but I do not think that it would assist the campaign to suggest that the choice of tenants would be subject to review by a Central Department,
and such a course would, in fact, be quite impracticable.

An HON. MEMBER: But will the right hon. Gentleman consider the popularising of housing bonds by making them a form of lottery bond?

Dr. ADDISON: We have had a decision of the House on that question, and I cannot depart from that.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 59
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has decided to ask for interest to be paid upon any outstanding amounts due for purposes of Excess Profits Tax; and, if so, will he state the amount upon which such interest is to be paid?

Mr. LUNN: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the question of imposing interest on outstanding amounts in respect of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy comes within the scope of the Commission on Income Tax; and, if not, whether he will immediately refer this question to a representative Committee so that it can be dealt with in the Finance Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of charging interest on amounts outstanding in respect of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy is one which is outside the scope of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax. The matter is receiving my careful consideration, but I am not prepared to anticipate any proposals I may have to make on this subject in the course of my forthcoming Budget statement.

Mr. SMITH: Did not the right hon. Gentleman in his last Budget Statement say that during the year he would consider this question? Has he done so? And will not something be levied in respect of these arrears?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I said I would consider the question in the light of the experience of the coming year and I have had it under my consideration.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Viscount WOLMER: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total contributions of England, Scotland and
Wales will be in a normal financial year to the liabilities set forth in the Third Schedule to the Government of Ireland Bill to which Ireland is to contribute £18,000,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the Estimate for a normal year given last October (Command 376) Imperial services to a total of £617,500,000 were shown separately. This total is not exhaustive, as certain Imperial Services were not given separately.
On this basis the total contributions of England, Scotland and Wales would be approximately £600,000,000. But I must warn my Noble Friend that the very tentative sketch of the figures of a normal year was prepared for a quite different purpose and was subject to the conditions and limitations which were stated in the White Paper, and their use for other calculations may easily be misleading.

Viscount WOLMER: Does that not mean that under the Home Rule Bill the taxpayers of Great Britain will be contributing about three or four times as much per head towards the Imperial liabilities as the taxpayers of Ireland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot carry the actual figures in my head.

Viscount WOLMER: May I suggest that the Government do the sum before the Bill is introduced?

SILVER COINAGE.

Mr. OMAN: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the price of silver has fallen from 88d. per ounce to 69d. in the last fortnight, and that the profitable coinage of silver money at the old rate of purity can be resumed at a profit when silver has fallen to 66d, per ounce, he will suspend the issue of new currency of silver at the lowered purity?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I cannot accept this suggestion.

PALM OIL CONCESSION, ISLAND OF SHERBORO.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 70.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to
a prospectus about to be issued, which claims to have obtained an exclusive concession to deal in palm oil compression in the Island of Sherboro for 21 years; and whether this concession has received the sanction of His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The concession referred to confers no other exclusive right, except that of erecting power mills for the expression of oil from palm fruit within the area specified. It confers no right to the trees or the fruit. The negotiations for the grant had been carried so far before the War that it was not thought just to refuse to confirm the grant when peace rendered it possible for the concessionaires to resume their operations.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement before Lord Cave's Commission on the 5th instant that the British South Africa Company had commenced disposing of the land of the natives before they had any title whatever, and to Lord Cave's remarks that they had certainly disposed in this way of lands exceeding £14,000; and whether he can say by what colour of title the company professed to do this?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I have seen the passages referred to, the first of which comes from the argument of counsel before Lord Cave's Commission, while the second is a remark by the Chairman of the Commission. Pending the report of the Commission I do not propose to make comments on points arising on the proceedings of the Commission

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can nothing be done to prevent the Chartered Company, pending the report of the Commission, alienating further lands belonging to the natives?

RHODESIA.

Mr. RAFFAN: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the 35,000 Rhodesian natives referred to in the White Book [Cmd. 547] have already been removed from their
holdings; and what financial provision has been or will be made to them in order to cover the cost of rebuilding their homes and kraals upon, and the bringing into cultivation of the new lands, which they have been or are to be located?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I will ask the High Commissioner for South Africa to furnish a report on the points mentioned.

TELEPHONE SEEVICE.

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the serious injury to trade and business in Liverpool which is caused by the shortage of telephone accommodation in that city; whether he is aware that the firm of Taylor's Automatic Disinfector, Limited, performing services of great value to the community in the disinfecting of ships arrived in the port from overseas, having been compelled by force of circumstances to change their premises, have been refused a transfer of their telephone on the ground that the cable of the Royal Exchange is fully occupied; whether the possession of a telephone is essential to the work of the firm; whether the firm will now have to wait till some subscriber perishes before they can efficiently carry on their business; whether there are many similar cases in Liverpool; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter to enable the commerce and industry of the country to be carried on efficiently.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Telephone service at the firm's new address cannot be supplied until about five weeks hence owing to lack of spare wires in the underground cables. There are many other oustanding applications in the Liverpool district. The provision of new cables and of additional exchange accommodation has been in hand for a considerable time past. A new Central Exchange and an extension of the Bank Exchange are being pressed forward as rapidly as possible, and other measures are under consideration for affording relief to the Royal Exchange. In view of the magnitude of the work and of the difficulties experienced by contractors in supplying the large quantities of plant, time must necessarily elapse before all applications received can be met.

Mr. HIGHAM: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the number of operators engaged on the City, Regent, and Gerrard Exchanges respectively; the salary paid to these operators; the number of hours daily that they are employed; the average number of new operators taken on during the six months ending 31st December, 1919; how many operators left the service during that period; and what were the chief reasons given by them for leaving their employment?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The operating staff employed at the City, Regent and Gerrard Exchanges number 333, 158 and 258 respectively, excluding supervising staff. Their pay, including war bonus, ranges from 32s. 4d. a week (at 16 years of age) to 55s. 4d. a week. The gross hours of duty are 48 weekly, involving a net working attendance not exceeding 42½ hours weekly. During the six months ended 31st December last 113 learners in all were appointed at the three exchanges, and 124 trained telephonists were trans-f rred from other exchanges. Seventy-five telephonists resigned from these exchanges during the same period, of whom 13 left to be married, 18 on grounds of health, 16 to take up other employment, and 28 for private reasons. In addition, 27 telephonists were retired for various reasons.

Mr. HICHAM: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state how many applications for telephones he has had from January, 1919, to January, 1920; how many telephones have been installed during that period other than telephones for Government Departments; will he explain why there is so much delay in getting new telephones installed, particularly in business offices; whether the delay is due to lack of instruments or labour; and can he state the names of firms who supply telephone equipment and if it is open to any manufacturer, either at home or abroad, to tender?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The number of applications received for telephones from 1st January, 1919, to 1st January, 1920, was, approximately, 94,300; the number of new installations completed, excluding those for Government Departments, was 61,987. The total number of telephone instruments provided, in those new installations and in extensions of existing
installations, was 103,686. The delay in providing telephone circuits in certain districts is generally due to shortage of spare wires in the underground cables or want of accommodation for additional circuits on the exchange switchboards and to difficulty in obtaining from contractors an adequate supply of manufactured material, including underground pipes, switchboards and other plant. There are a large number of contractors for various classes of telephone equipment; any firm may compete on furnishing satisfactory evidence of ability to meet Post Office requirements. As a general rule, tenders would not be invited from manufacturers outside the United Kingdom.

Viscount CURZON: In view of the delay in getting a telephone installed, will private firms be allowed to tender for such work?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: No.

Mr. FRANCE: Why is it that the Department cannot do what any private firm can do, that is overcome difficulties in order to keep their customers?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: We can do what every private firm can do, but there are only a certain number of manufacturers' and private firms would not get on any quicker.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Was not a private firm before the War able to give us a much better telephone service?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: My recollection of the National Telephone service is that it was considerably worse.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my recollection is entirely in the opposite direction?

Mr. HICHAM: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General how many new telephone instruments his Department has purchased for the public telephone service from January, 1919, to January, 1920; how many telephones have been dismantled from Government Departments during the same period; how many of these instruments have been reinstalled by private subscribers; and what is the total number of instruments he had on hand on 1st January, 1920?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: From the 1st January, 1919, to the end of the year
92,800 telephone instruments were ordered, and 25,371 delivered, and 27,547 were recovered from Government Departments. It is not possible to say how many of the recovered instruments were included in the 103,686 telephones installed during the year for private subscribers. The Post Office had in stock on the 1st of January, 1920, 14,300 telephone instruments ready for use, besides a much larger number undergoing repair in its factories. The hon. Member will understand that the instrument is only a relatively small part of the apparatus required to give telephone service.

EDUCATION.

COUNTY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, WALES.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that local education authorities in Wales are experiencing difficulty in meeting the largely-increased cost of maintaining their county intermediate schools; and whether he will consider the desirability of contributing a higher proportion of the net expenditure, particularly in rural areas where rates are high?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I am, of course, aware that secondary schools, not only in Wales but also in England, have to face a largely increased expenditure. The Board have quite recently made Regulations (Grant Regulations No. 4) under Section 44 of the Education Act, 1918, relating to Higher Education. The grants under these Regulations will come into full effect in 1920–21 and will, I hope, considerably improve the situation.

LOCAL EDUCATIOX AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the number of local education authorities which received increased grants in highly rated areas under Article 6 (ii) of the Regulations for Substantive Grant for Public Elementary Schools during the year 1019–20, and the aggregate amount of such grants; the estimated number of local education authorities which would have received such grants in 1920–21 if the prescribed
amount remained at 27d., and the estimated aggregate amount of such grants; and the estimated number of local education authorities which will receive such grants, and the estimated aggregate sum thereof when the prescribed amount has been fixed at 48d.?

Mr. FISHER: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the reply, which is somewhat lengthy, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the reply referred to:

The amount of Substantive Grant, including the sum payable under Article C (ii) of the Regulations, in respect of the year 1919–20, cannot be determined until particulars of the; expenditure, etc., upon which the grant depends have been furnished to the Board. Those particulars will, of course, not be available till after the end of the year; in the meantime, payment of instalments on account of the total sum payable is being made during the year. But upon the estimates of their expenditure made by the Local Education Authorities for the current year, between 30 and 40 authorities would appear to be entitled to increased grant under Article 6, amounting in the total to about £200,000.

It is impossible to estimate the number of authorities which would receive grants in respect of the year 1920–21 if the prescribed amount remained at 27d., or the number of authorities that will receive increased grant in respect of the year 1920–21 when the prescribed amount is 48d., as the Board have no information as to the expenditure of the Local Education Authorities in that year. It is, however, evident that a general rise in the rates is inevitable next year. In order that the benefite of the additional grant may be confined, as is the intention of the Article, to exceptional areas, and that the Treasury may not be committed to indefinite expenditure on unknown facts, it has been considered necessary to raise the prescribed amount substantially.

IRELAND.

CONGESTED DISTEICTS BOAEDS (SUPERANNUATION OF OFFICIALS).

Mr. A. SHORT: 81.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, during the passage of the Government
of Ireland Bill of 1914, the Treasury declined to continue negotiations with the Congested Districts Board for Ireland on the question of giving effect to the provisions of Section 52 (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1909, on the ground that the matter was one which might be left over for the consideration of the proposed new Irish Government; whether the Treasury intimated at the same time that no officers employed by the Board would suffer any loss or deprivation as a result of this postponement; whether there are at present in the Board's employment officers of 25 years' service and upwards, some of whom are now in impaired health and may shortly be obliged to retire; whether a recommendation of the Irish Civil Service Home Rule Committee for the insertion of a Clause in the new Government of Ireland Bill safeguarding the interests of the officers employed by the Board was rejected by the Treasury; whether the Treasury will take immediate steps to render effective Section 52 (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1909?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question on the subject on the 26th ultimo. The responsibility for framing a pension scheme under Section 52 (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1909, rests entirely with the Congested Districts Board. The Treasury has never refused to consider any suitable scheme framed under that Section which may be submitted for approval.

Mr. SHORT: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a communication was received from the Congested Districts Board for Ireland in September last inquiring whether the Treasury offer, made in May, 1912, to take over the financial responsibility of a scheme for the superannuation of the officers employed by the Board is still open for the consideration of the Board, and, alternatively, asking that the Treasury would indicate which classes of officers in the Board's service in the schedule accompanying their letter would be considered eligible for pension rights under Section 52 (2) of the Irish Land Act of 1909, in order that actuarial advice might be obtained by the Board as to the annual sum which would be required to finance a scheme out of the Board's own funds;
whether the Treasury have yet come to a decision in the matter; and, if so, what is the nature of the decision and has it been conveyed to the Congested Districts Board for Ireland?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am in communication with the Irish Government on this matter, and I hope that a decision will shortly be conveyed to the Congested Districts Board.

VILLAGE HALLS (ARMY HUTS).

Mr. HINDS: 84.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he will authorise parish councils to be supplied with Army huts for village halls and library purposes upon the same terms as such huts are being supplied to local educational authorities?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Under an arrangement with the Ministry of Health, and with the Board of Education, huts for housing, tuberculosis and educational purposes are supplied by the Ministry to Local Authorities and Local Education Authorities at a discount of 33⅓ per cent., such discount being refunded to the Ministry by the Department concerned. Parish councils wishing to acquire huts for these purposes are at liberty to avail themselves of this arrangement.

ROYAL NAVY.

REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS (SHIPS).

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 85.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the use of the naval ships for the repatriation of prisoners of war and of the Czech forces in Siberia has been considered: and, if so, what were the conclusions reached and on what grounds?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The use of His Majesty's ships for repatriation of prisoners of war and of the Czech forces in Siberia has not been considered by the Admiralty. I may say, however, that no ships of the fighting fleet could be spared for such a purpose for which they would in any case be entirely unsuitable. Certain obsolete ships might be adapted at some expense to render them fit to carry
a certain number of prisoners or troops, but the Admiralty would be unable to provide any personnel, and in any case the large engine-room complements that would be required to steam these ships would render the undertaking most costly.

CALIPHATE DELEGATION.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the members of the Caliphate or Islamic delegation now visiting this country have been officially received by representatives of the Indian Government in England; whether such reception constitutes an act of official approval of the constitution of this delegation: and whether the Government of India would have been acting within its powers had it pointed but to the heads of the Mahomedan faith in India and in this country the sinister results liable to accrue from the inclusion of a revolutionary as the leader of this delegation, whereby his political activities are given a religious cloak?

Mr. FISHER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second, in the negative. With regard to the third part, it is, of course, within the power of the Government of India to point out anything they please.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that the head of this deputation was interned during the War for pro-German activities in India, and afterwards offered release from internment if he would take the oath of loyalty to the King Emperor, which he refused to do?

Mr. FISHER: I believe that is, roughly speaking, a fact.

REVOLUTION IN GERMANY.

Mr. ASQUITH: (by Private Notice)
asked the Leader of the House if he could give any information as to the progress of events in Germany?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We have received a telegram despatched late yesterday afternoon from our Chargé d'ASaires at Berlin which confirms the news in the Press and which I shall now read to the House.
It is as follows:—"A communiqué from the new Government has just been issued by Wolff Bureau stating that negotiations have been entered upon with the old Government at the wish of the latter. A Cabinet is to be formed upon general basis of appointment of non-political Ministers (Fach-Minister) including those from old Government. Within two months new elections to Reichstag and Prussian Assembly are to take place. At the same time there is to be a new Presidential election by people.
"Until new election is complete present President is to be requested to remain in office. A second working Chamber is to be formed by extension of Industrial Councils and State Economic Council. A joint declaration will be issued by new and old Governments stating that in present circumstances general strike is a crime against German nation. New dual Ministry has been entrusted by all (? groups) with conduct of affairs until a decision is reached on these proposals."

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any censorship on news from Germany?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We really have very little information. We have nothing in that regard beyond the statement made yesterday, when we were told that there was a press censorship.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any apprehension as regards the safety of our military mission in Berlin?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is answered by the statement I have read. There can be no such danger.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I desire to refer to a matter which I raised at Question time yesterday. It will be within your recollection and the recollection of the House that the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) asked a question of the Prime Minister which he prefaced with these words, "whether his attention has been called to the answers
given last Thursday by the Minister representing the Foreign Office." The point I wish to put to you is whether it is in order for any hon. or right hon. Member to ask a question, and in that question to allude to a previous answer given to a question put to a Member of the Government if that question had been answered in the same Session?

Mr. SPEAKER: The usual rule is that questions should not refer to questions which have been answered during the course of the current Session. In this particular case I took the view that the real question was in the last paragraph of the Noble Lord's question which was, "whether he will arrange that in future full information on foreign affairs shall, so far as is consistent with public interests, be given to the House." That was really the question which the Noble Lord wished to put, and my mind was rather directed to that. The first part of the question which the hon. Member describes as a preface I looked upon as in the nature of a preface or an illustration in order to point the moral of the question. Perhaps I ought to have been more strict.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it your ruling that it is inadmissible for an hon. Member to draw attention to question and answer given in the same Session in order to give point to his question at the end?

Mr. SPEAKER: It occurred yesterday, and I passed it over. My attention was not sufficiently directed to that particular part of the question. I think it is desirable to stick to the old rule which has always been maintained.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

EBBW VALE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

Sir FEASCIS LOWE reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That Mr. J. Guest, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Chairmen's Panel: Sir Albion Richardson; and had appointed in substitution: Sir William Pearce.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A: Br. Addison.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Stewart; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Hilder.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Ready Money Football Betting Bill): Sir Peter Griggs; and had appointed in substitution: Major Sir Keith Fraser.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Veterinary Surgeons Act (1881) Amendment Bill): Mr. Cautley, Sir Watson Cheyne, Brigadier-General Colvin, Major Courthope, Major Farquharson, Mr. Finney, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Guinness, Mr. Jodrell, Captain Loseby, Major M'Micking,
Major Watts Morgan, Dr. Murray, Mr. Allen Parkinson, and Mr. Stanton.

STASDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Blind (Education, Employment, and Maintenance) Bill): Dr. Addison, Mr. Clynes, Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. Harbison, Captain Loseby, Mr. M'Guffin, Dr. Murray, Sir Robert Newman, Lieutenant-Colonel Raw, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Sugden, Brigadier-General Surtees, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Tillett, and Mr. Walsh.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [Lords].

Message from the Lords,

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of four Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Law of Property Bill, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21.— [VOTE ON ACCOUNT.]

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £241,040,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, namely:—

[For details of Vote on Account, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1920, cols. 1869–73.]

Resolution read a second time.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Sir DONALD MACLEN: I beg to move "That the Vote be reduced by £100,000,000."
I propose to confine my remarks to the domestic side of our expenditure. The world aspect received a considerable amount of attention yesterday, and was covered fully and adequately by my right hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Asquith). But whatever is necessary abroad or is necessary at home, there can be no question whatever that unless we have increased production and very much increased economy there can be no hope of recovery. It is on the question of domestic economy in public expenditure that I have put down this Amendment. It is, I think, an unprecedented Amendment, but we live in abnormal times, and it is emphatically necessary to take strong measures to meet the needs of the moment as they are developed before us. I would like first to draw attention to the letter of the Prime Minister, which was despatched to the various Departments on August 20th of last year, and to make that the text of the remarks which I propose to make. In that letter he says:
The state of the national finances is such that only what is indispensable to sound administration ought to be maintained. Everything in excess must be ruthlessly cut down. In the interests of economy we must be willing to content ourselves with the second best where the best is too costly.
The first point about that letter which I wish to make is this, that it was addressed to the Departments in August last year just in time to ensure that the Departments should give full consideration to
it, and would have ample opportunity in framing their Estimates to give full effect to these directions—I think that that is not too strong a word—of the Prime Minister that everything in excess should be ruthlessly cut down, and that in the interests of economy we ought to content ourselves at the present moment, at any rate, with the second best where the best is too costly.
I do not think that I exaggerate when I say that Members of this House and the public were considerably shocked when they read the Civil Service Estimates and grasped the fact, so far as the normal mind can grasp these figures of hundreds of millions, that the Estimate for the year 1920–21, the second year of peace, was £557,000,000, six times the sum for 1914, entirely apart from the Navy, the Army and the Air Service to which of course I cannot allude to-day. It is true that the direction has been effective to the extent of about £93,500,000, but that is more than accounted for by either the reduction or cessation of some emergency services. For instance, loans to Allies come down from £147,000,000 to an estimate of £36,000,000; railway agreement from £60,000,000 to £23,000,000; bread subsidy from £50,000,000 to £45,000,000; coal mines deficiency from £26,000,000 to £15,000,000. So we are left to this obvious fact, that there is no cutting down on any scale, let alone ruthlessly, which is appreciable to the ordinary mind in the great permanent Departments or in those great new Departments which have been created since the War. What we ought to do now is to copy the example of the Navy and the Army in demobilising the fighting forces. We want to demobilise the forces of bureaucracy in this country. We are in the second year since the War and though there have been some indications recently in the Press of large diminutions in the numbers of the staffs of some Departments, that does not seem to have reflected itself in the cost.
What this Committee has to determine in its examination of the financial policy of the Government as regards domestic finance is this: as to whether the Executive is in any real material practical sense carrying out the directions given by the Prime Minister to the Departments in August of last year. There are some exceptions which one should naturally make as between the productive and non-productive services, and I for one would
regret profoundly any decrease, in so far as it is not caused by the removal of extravagance, in the Education Vote, and of course we are fully committed to dealing not only justly but generously with the question of pensions. But I would like to direct attention to one or two things which have come before us during the past week or two as showing clearly that there is no real will to economise among the Departments. The first I take is what I think hon. Members will remember quite well. Last week we had the question of the buildings. It was only by the overwhelming expression of opinion by the Committee that very reluctantly the Executive were compelled to limit the Estimate which they brought before the Committee to the acquisition of land and to postpone the cost of the building. Take another—the Supplemental Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture. The Supplemental Estimate is rather more than 50 per cent. of the original Estimate for the year. That is, they were 50 per cent. wrong in their calculations as to what the cost was to be. But I would specially direct attention again to one of these items, showing, as I am submitting, the spirit in which the Departments are working. Hon. Members will recollect the expenditure under S.1. Corn Production Act of 1917. Somebody got an attack of nerves in the office of the Minister of Agriculture, and said that there was going to be such a fall in prices that we ought to have a survey at once to see what the State would have to pay the farmers under the bargain between them and the State.
4.0 P.M.
I am not an agriculturist, but the figure under this head on the Estimate was a pretty glaring one. To my surprise, my urban view of the situation was backed up by every agriculturist who spoke in the Debate. They all agreed that the expenditure was wholly unnecessary, and that, if the Ministry had taken the trouble to inquire from any person who really understood and took a calm view of the situation, they would have been told that there was no fear at all of the State being called upon to pay; but on the machine went, and accordingly they appointed 1,000 inspectors at £100 each, and it cost, in addition, £20,000 in travelling expenses and subsistence allowance, making a total of £130,000, all of which was thrown
away. That is a clear case of the lack of spirit of economy in these Departments. I will take another instance, the Ministry of Transport. We moved a reduction of the Headquarter Staff. That Ministry has been in operation for five or six months, and it has already cost the country £136,500 for the Headquarter Staff. We asked the Parliamentary Secretary, who, in the regrettable absence of his chief, spoke in the Debate, what was the policy. We asked him what all the eleven Departments, with the seven Directors-General, and all the necessary gradations of official rank below those generals, were for and what they were doing. He said that the major work was to consider what should be the policy, but they had replied to 2,000 queries. He added this cautious observation, that people really ought to write to the railway companies who were carrying on, as always, with a certain amount of efficiency, and that it was no use writing to the Ministry. Where is there any evidence of a ruthless cutting down of expenditure or a contentment with the second best where the best is too costly? These are things which make the country restless, dissatisfied, and determined, in so far as they can through us here, to have a change in these methods of administration.
We had the Food Ministry before us yesterday. That is one of the Departments that show a decrease. They have some reductions there, but the headquarter staff for 1920–21 still numbers 1,437, as against 1,909 in 1919–20. You might take any one of these Departments. I have given two or throe which occur to me as worthy of illustration. If you take them all and go through them steadily, you will find the same thing. Practically, they snap their fingers at the cries of the overburdened taxpayer. They will not go until they are made to go. It is very largely the same with the permanent Departments, with their swollen staffs and still prodigal expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer over and over again has said, "Let us work to the normal year." You will never get a normal year until you make it so. If you drift along in this way waiting for Departments to demobilise or reduce themselves, you will never approach the normal year. It is because I feel that so strongly that I am urging the House to take the initiative itself. You will never get the Government
to do very much. They are all very busy and the pressure upon each Department and each Minister, of course, is to keep the whole thing in being. It is for this House to realise its financial responsibility to the nation. My colleagues and myself, since the very first day of this Parliament, have been hitting as hard as we could on this subject, but so far we have made little impression on the Government, although there has been a swift development of public indignation to which the Government seem very largely impervious.
There is another question to which I wish to draw attention. It is a necessary part of war that there should be huge accumulations of stocks held by the various Departments. Of course, the right thing to do when those stocks are realised is to apply them to the reduction of the Floating Debt. I have before me a clear cut example of what is happening. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries bring in aid the receipts from the realisation of the tractor and horse ploughing schemes and matters of that kind, amounting to a total of £559,700, and the Minister of Agriculture, referring to some of the items, congratulated himself upon the fact that they could bring in these realisations in aid. Of course, it tends to departmental extravagance when they know that they can practically balance by bringing in realisations of capital. What business could live on those terms for six months? Yet that is what every Government Department that has had anything to do with capital expenditure during the War and that has these surplus stores is doing. There is no concealment about it; it is here on the face of the Estimates themselves.
What is the remedy? I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. I am going to suggest to him a remedy. Although he has refused it, I tender the medicine to him once more. Bring the House of Commons into partnership in these matters of expenditure and carry into effect the recommendation in the Ninth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, with which my right hon. Friend the Junior Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has had a very close and honourable career. The hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Marriott) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far they were prepared to
carry out that Report. There was a very large number of recommendations, but the particular question to which great importance was attached was the proposed Estimates Committee. I have said it before, but I am going on saying it, because some time or other we may make some impression. That recommendation was one of the most powerful that has ever come before this House. It had the expressed approval of Mr. Speaker, of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and of the Clerk of the House. I carefully examined the proposal, and, so far as my experience of six or seven years in the Chair adds any weight, I also agreed to it. My right hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Asquith) also agreed to it when he was asked his opinion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The approval of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was a very qualified approval. The proposal was directly disapproved by Mr. McKenna, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by myself when I also was more happily situated than at present, and was an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think no verbal evidence was even taken. A questionnaire was sent out, and some of them answered, but the matter was never pursued by examination.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes, I accept all those qualifications, but do not in the least alter my' opinion on the matter.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite certain if my memory is correct, but may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he himself did not give evidence before the Committee last spring upon this very point?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I remember being before the Committee, but I do not remember giving evidence on this point. I think the report to which my right hon Friend is speaking was founded on a questionnaire sent out by Mr. Herbert Samuel.

Sir F. BANBURY: There were two reports. Another Member of the Committee is here, and he confirmed me in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was there and was questioned.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that I qualified the opinion that I quite definitely stated in my answer which was ignored by the earlier Committee just as
was Mr. McKenna's opinion. I only intervene because I do not wish it to go forth that the whole weight of financial authority, particularly those who have been personally responsible for the finances of the country, was in favour of the proposal. I am anxious for anything which will make for better control over the finances, but my objections to this proposal are that it trenches on the pre rogative of the House of Commons in a way that hon. Members do not realise, and that it will not give effective control over expenditure

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his qualification of the statement which I made. The House will pass its own judgment of the matter as it now stands. The proposal received the authority which I have indicated, and it had the disapproval of the authorities which my right hon. Friend has intimated to us. He speaks of ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend and Leader is also an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no doubt even he has imbibed some of the prejudices of the office. Of course, the Treasury do not want to lose any sort of authority that they possess, and are naturally jealous of the House of Commons. I am making a House of Commons point. They have been making, quite rightly, a Treasury point. The reply which they gave was this:
In their view—His Majesty's Government—its adoption would lessen the responsibility of Ministers and would tend to weaken the control of the Treasury over expenditure.
What effect has that control over expenditure had over these swollen Estimates? If that be all that Treasury control can do, we want something to help to strengthen the Treasury, and the right way to do that is through the House of Commons It is the only body which is left to help my right hon. Friend in his daily struggles, which I am sure are numerous and fierce. I should myself have thought that he would have said: "This is the very thing that I want. The House of Commons is always on to me for increased expenditure. I will bring them in by means of one of their Committees, and throw the responsibility on to them, so that they will not be so ready to press me for further grants in this or that direction, because their own
Committee will have an added sense of responsibility, and will assist me." No, we come back to the old financial position, and I am hoping, some time or other, to drag or dynamite my right hon. Friend out of that. It is the real point. I am sure that some time or other he will thoroughly realise the immense importance of getting going once again in its entirety the full sense of responsibility of the House of Commons over expenditure, I know it is an immense advantage, and this is the way to get it.
I come to my final point, that is an explanation, if it is needed, of the size of the reduction which I have moved. The total sum of the Estimate, as I have pointed out, is 557 millions and a half, and the Government is asking for a sum of 241 millions on account. I do not think I am far wrong when I say that that represents about what is needed to carry, on for about five months. Meanwhile, of course, some Estimates will be passed to assist the Treasury in the approval by Parliament of the various funds which are asked, but where will that carry the Executive to? It carries them on to the 16th August. Therefore, it will be seen that, having this authority from the House of Commons, they are practically independent of us, except in so far as the Estimates come up from time to time. We know what happens on the Estimates, A small band of economists from all parts of the House fight on these Estimates, and the Minister stands firm. He is all right; he knows that perfectly well. The division bells are rung, and in comes a well-drilled battalion and supports the Government. Why need the Minister bother? In the end, under the Standing Orders, all the Votes pass, millions and millions of money as the minutes go by, under the guillotine.
The position I am putting to my right hon. Friend is so abnormal that I do not think the House of Commons is justified in trusting the Executive for five months. The House ought to insist on Having from time to time opportunities of a general review such as we have had to-day and yesterday. They should come back to us and ask for another of the necessary amounts to carry them through, if they have not got already sufficient grant from the Commons itself. I therefore take the sum of £100,000,000, which, after a rough calculation which I have made, will, I
think, necessitate the Government coming back again to the House of Commons somewhere in June. I think that is quite a plain, ordinary, common-sense business proposal. They are asking us here for the large sum of £241,000,000 on account. We are not satisfied—I think I am speaking the mind of the majority of the House of Commons, whatever party they belong to—they are disturbed about these swollen Estimates. We say, "Carry on for three months and then come back to us again, and we will have an opportunity, and it is the duty of the House of Commons to keep this close check on the Executive and the expenditure of public money." It is for that reason and because of the fact that the existence of the House of Commons, its essential power, is finance. Our liberties from the King are on finance, and we are in danger of losing our liberties to the Executive over finance. The House of Commons must wrest back its responsibility and rise to the height of its duty in this matter. It is because of that I am moving the reduction which stands in my name.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I anticipated that my right hon Friend was going to take a rather different line, and I had not contemplated taking part in this Debate myself, but I feel that as far as my right hon. Friend's observations were addressed to me—and in particular, in this matter, they were addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he and the House may consider that it is proper I should make some reply on behalf of the Government. Let me deal, first of all, with what is, I think, a very minor point, one more of form than of substance. My right hon. Friend considers that we are asking too much in asking for five months' supply. The point of substance in that is that the House of Commons should retain its control over the Government, and I submit that, as a matter of fact, under present circumstances the House does retain that control, even though they have already voted a large vote on account. I think it is much more convenient for the House to have the time available for financial discussion and to have that time employed on particular estimates than in a series of general debates of the character that we have had to-day and yesterday. That may be said without underestimating the importance of such a Debate as that of yesterday,
which I think did much to clear the air, largely thanks to the speech made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) which in more skilful and sonorous language repeated speeches many times made from this Bench. Largely thanks to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, it helped to put the real position before the country, and to sweep away mists of misrepresentation and misapprehension with which controversy has been clouded.

Mr. ASQUITH: I was not a conscious plagiarist.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At any rate, there was nothing in my right hon. Friend's speech, or only one passage—to which I shall have to allude presently, because it has formed the substance of his right hon. Friend's and colleague's speech—which might not have been delivered, and which in substance has not been delivered, already, and more than once, by Members of the Government. With the substance of it I found myself in general agreement with my right hon. Friend. What I have more than once tried to impress on the House and the country was put with unexampled force and in a way which excited all my admiration. Of course, the Opposition can, at any time, secure an opportunity for general discussion if they want. They have more than once done so. They will have it on the Budget, and will use it; but, in the meantime, I must express surprise that my right hon. Friend is so anxious to deprive the Government of its resources. I thought it was held by himself and by those who represent him in the Press, that this Government was tottering to an early fall. I should have thought he would have been glad, and rather grateful than otherwise, for the provision of resources for some time for the Government which is to succeed it.
I now come to the proposition which my right hon. Friend made, that we should appoint a committee on estimates. Let me say at once that I am as anxious as he is to revive, if it ever existed in times of which he or I have memory, the Government control or to create a Government control, of the House over finance. Nothing could be more important for the Government than to associate the House with it in the control of expenditure and to instil into the House some portion of their own strong feeling that rigorous
economy is necessary. The whole difference between my right hon. Friend and myself is whether the particular procedure which he recommended is compatible with our Parliamentary customs and with the rights of the House of Commons in other respects, and would be efficient for the purpose in view. I will be quite frank with the House and with my right hon. Friend. I approach this question under the circumstances of the present day with the desire to recant the evidence which I have submitted to the Committee, and I find myself unconvinced that the Committee have found a solution. I cannot do that. Let me take first of all the position of the House of Commons. It is no good having a Committee to examine if the House is going to Vote the Estimates while they are still under examination and before the Committee has reported. Is the House ready to postpone its own examination, its own control until this Committee or these Committees have gone through all the Votes and made their Report? Is the House willing to do that in regard to the main Estimates of the year? Could you possibly apply that system to Supplementary Estimates introduced in the early part of the Session which had to be carried and embodied in the Appropriation Act before 31st March?
Then, passing from that question, which concerns the rights of the House of Commons, every advocate of this scheme has laid it down that the Committee must not interfere with policy. That is the prerogative of the House of Commons. We are doing it. Every item is to come before the Committee, but we are told that it is not to interfere with the control of the House of Commons. We have heard right hon. Gentlemen and other Members of the House reiterate the opinion that expenditure depends upon policy, but if you tell the Committee that it is not to touch policy, how can it control expenditure? It could not do it. If it were to make an exhaustive inquiry, it would occupy the labours, I think, of two or three Committees. What is still more important, it would require the continuous attention of the officers of the Government, the representatives of the Departments, and perhaps the Minister, to make a meticulous survey of all the details of expenditure and to find out minor savings which ought to have been discovered in the Departments in the first
place, or in the second place by the Treasury. That, I am afraid, is the limit of the Committee's usefulness. There is another point, and that is the way in which it would add new difficulties to those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Treasury control. All my experience goes to prove that if the House of Commons exercised that right of detailed examination, it would exercise it as often in the direction of new expenditure as it would in trying to cut down the Estimates.

Sir F. BANBURY: That was not my experience of the Committee.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All experience shows that a Committee, though primarily appointed to make economies, would, if established, bring forward recommendations for new expenditure.

Sir F. BANBURY: There was a Committee of that sort before, of which at that time I was Chairman, and I am glad to say we never, under any circumstances, recommended any new expenditure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Baronet is probably one of the few Members of the House who can truly say that in his long membership of the House he has never sought on any occasion to increase public expenditure. I think that would be true, also, of some of my right hon. Friends opposite, but the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, comes nearer to the ideal. Although this Committee did resist the temptation to introduce new expenditure, I do not believe that if such a Committee were permanently set up it would be immune from the temptation which besets a Committee of this House to introduce new sources of expenditure. I ventured some time ago, in answer to the questions by Mr. Herbert Samuel, to say that financial control never has been and never will be conducted by the House of Commons itself; that it could only be conducted in the Departments, and, if outside of the Department, in the Treasury, and that anything which lessened their authority would be detrimental to the interests of economy. I am quite certain that the establishment of this sort of Committee would lead to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury being beset by a new form of demands by the spending Departments. At present the Chancellor of the Exchequer uses the House of Com
mons as a shield, but if a department of this kind was in existence the department might say to him, "Let us make our case before it; do not you turn us down and prevent us from taking the judgment of the Committee upon this or that proposal." The Committee would be used by the Department, not for the purpose for which it was intended, not to strengthen control, but for breaking down the control by going all over it again. That would not do.
I do not think we shall find salvation in that. We shall find it rather in the self-restraint exercised by Members of this House which may induce the Members to forego their demands at the expense of a little display of courage and temporary unpopularity, subservience to bodies of their constituents or agitations in the Press for the expenditure of public money. Speaking sometime last year, I said it was necessary to decrease Government expenditure, and I had to answer criticisms which had been made. I said that an hon. Friend had presented to the Prime Minister a memorial signed by more than half the Members of the House in favour of increased pensions to ex-Government servants. I said I had refused that petition, and I asked the House to support me; but the House did not. Ten days or a fortnight ago it refused me that support by a majority of two to one. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was absent like others. The origin of this heavy expenditure is not the Government nor the bureaucracy, although it is quite true, as has been said, that if you set up a tremendous machine and get it going it does not soon lose its momentum and it is difficult to stop it; but it is not the Government nor the bureaucracy, it is the continuous demand from this House, from Members of this House who do not resist the proposals, which make the constantly-increasing expenditure necessary. They bring these proposals to me, and I resist a great many of them. Many of them come before Ministers, who also refuse them, and others are resisted by the Treasury. We do our best to administer the finances of the country prudently and economically, but in order to do so we must have the support of the House, and the blame must not be put upon our shoulders. If you do not support us, it is not fair to attribute all these misfortunes to the Minister who happens to be in charge. The blame must be on
your shoulders, I turn from that part of the speech to the question of the Civil Service Estimates, as presented to the House, which were the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's speech just now. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the Member for Paisley) yesterday he did not deal with much detail, but to-day the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with small details rather than with the broad aspects which were treated yesterday. I am not going to follow him into any rehash, if I may so call it, of the Debates on the Supplementary Estimates. The individual responsible Ministers were present to answer for their particular Departments, and I do not think that anything that I could add upon these matters of detail would better cover the ground.
But I would like to say a word or two about the total of the Estimates, because I think my right hon. Friend who spoke to-day and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Paisley, yesterday, have scarcely appreciated the character of these Estimates and how such a large sum is made up. May I give the House a few figures? It is difficult to avoid figures in a financial statement. The total of the Civil Service Estimates is £557,474,000. Of this total, £43,600,000 is for the Ministry of Shipping and Munitions, as explained in the Note on page 6. It is simply a matter of accountancy in accordance with the recommendations of the financial officials and a Committee of this House, and its object is to secure that these large sums shall not be appropriated in aid of the Vote, but shall appear in the gross expenditure and find their way direct to the Treasury. Therefore, £44,600,000 is a matter of accountancy and nothing more. I next come to the question of subsidies, on which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Paisley, spoke. There is £45,000,00 for the bread subsidy. Nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to deal with that, and I heartily agree with what he said, that the sooner we get rid of these subsidies the better. I agree that they conduce to conceal the real facts of the situation from the country and that they put a most onerous burden upon the State and on the national finances. Therefore I agree the sooner they are got rid of the better. I had hoped last year that we should be able to get rid of them absolutely about the end of the coming harvest, but I am doubtful about that now, because the prospects
pects are not so good as I had been led to believe. It is my opinion that the continuance of these subsidies is not justified except so far as they are a temporary measure to prevent an equally temporary rise followed by a fall. If prices are going to remain for a considerable time at a higher level than the price at which the loaf can be sold, I agree that the price of the loaf will have to rise again and the subsidy will have to be diminished to that extent.
In addition to this £45,000,000 for bread there are £15,000,000 for the railways. I think he was under a wrong impression when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) spoke of that. It is not a subsidy; it is really a debt, and a debt incurred by himself. It is part of the payment of the arrears for the maintenance of the railways, which was arranged very properly in an agreement by him when the railways were taken over at the commencement of the War, and therefore it is not a subsidy, it is a debt, and a debt incurred by him, by the Government and left by the right hon. Gentleman to us. Then there are £15,000,000 for coal. He treated that as a subsidy, but £3,000,000 of it is delayed expenditure under the agreement of 1918. Twelve millions of that sum was advanced and is repayable with interest from the new coal account, and it will be more than covered by the repayment this year. I am talking all along of the new financial year, but that applies to the previous year. I am taking the year in which the sum is applied. In that respect I have followed the advice of my friends and have excluded these specially large appropriations from the Vote so as to bring the receipts direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore £12,000,000 out of the £15,000,000 should have appeared in the Vote for the Civil Service Estimates of the year.

Mr. FRANCE: As to the £23,000,000, is it not true that it is partly caused or wholly caused by the increase of the pay of railway servants since the arrangement referred to was entered into?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is under a complete misapprehension. It is quite distinct from the charges for increased pay; it is for maintenance and renewals not carried out during the War because labour and material could not be
used on our home roads. £36,000,000 is loans for Allies, of which £18,000,000 is in respect of repayment due by the Allies to British Government Departments for war services. £10,000,000 is for relief loans to Central Europe. How much of that will be spent I cannot say. We have agreed to provide up to £10,000,000, but not exceeding half of what will be supplied by America. I am not taking my right hon. Friend as criticising any of these items. The balance is a re-vote of grants for relief and reconstruction and so forth allocated in 1919–20, but not spent this year. I proceed now to deal with additions to expenditure made by the House in full knowledge of what they involved after I had made my financial statement last October, telling them that new expenditure meant new taxation, and that I thought I saw my way to balance income and expenditure provided there was no new expenditure, but that if new expenditure was required, new revenue would have to be provided.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In his balancing of the accounts does the right hon. Gentleman include War realisations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will come to that in a moment. The House has sanctioned £10,000,000 additional charge for old age pensions. Of that, £8,200,000 accrued in the year with which we are dealing; £11,500,000 for housing; a sum additional to the previous cost of war pensions of £29,000,000, following the recommendation of the Second Report, I think, of the Select Committee of this House. They always land me into large expenditure. £3,000,000 is accounted for by War bonuses to Civil Servants granted since October last in accordance with the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, and, of course following the general trend of wages and salaries throughout the country. £15,000,000 is increased expenditure on education—a subject which I am forbidden to treat as one in which economy is permissible by both my right hon. Friends. Out-of-work donations, resettlement and training of ex-Service men accounted for £22,000,000. I exclude for the moment from the total of the sums which I have enumerated the additional £2,900,000 for pensions. Excluding that, the items which I have explained account for £222,300,000 out of the Estimate of £557,000,000. I exclude pensions because
that small addition, of course, is but a fraction of the charge for War pensions; the total for the coming year is £123,000,000. Add £123,000,000 to £222,300,000 and you get a round figure of £348,000,000 out of a total of £557,000,000, of which I do not believe that one penny is challenged under present circumstances, unless my right hon. Friend is prepared to say that we ought to have abolished the subsidy on bread forthwith and brought the price of the loaf in one bound, not to the neighbourhood of 1s., but to the neighbourhood of 1s. 3d.
What is the moral that I draw? It is that general statements as to the enormity of this expenditure are based, in the first place, partly on misapprehension of what the expenditure is—i.e., of lack of appreciation of accountancy operations introduced in deference to the wishes of this House; that, in the second place, a large portion of the sums I have enumerated is due to purely temporary charges which are not challenged; and that the balance of the sums I have enumerated, the £348,000,000 out of the total of £557,000,000, is not challenged under present circumstances in any quarter of the House. It is, therefore, in the remainder that my right hon. Friends must find their reductions. I invite my right hon. Friends to tell me any service now being rendered which they are prepared to recommend Parliament to dispense with. I invite them to tell me any method either by the abolition of a service or otherwise by which I can save what they consider to be an adequate sum. I would be content if they would put their finger on a practicable means of saving £500,000. I would be most grateful. When they have done that I will listen to them with even greater interest when they urge economy in the House and when they try to convict me of not having done my duty in the survey of national expenditure.
I do not know whether I am trespassing too long on the patience of the House. If not, I would like, as this Debate is in some respects a continuation of that of yesterday, to say a few words further about the speech of my right, hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). Undoubtedly the great problem that we have before us is the reduction of the
floating debt, because until we have reduced the floating debt the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not his own master; he has not control in his own house. We have passed, as I said I hoped we should, the peak of the National Debt. We have begun the reduction. I have ceased to borrow in order to balance current expenditure. My right hon. Friend asked whether, in the income which I counted to balance expenditure, was included the sale of surplus stores and the realisation of assets remaining over from the War. That is, of course, so. I have stated it on more than one occasion, and I submit it is a legitimate thing as long as there is a large remnant of direct War charges, such, for instance, as the railways, such as the loans to Allies to meet their indebtedness to us on account of the War Relief Fund of Europe., and, I might add, the bread subsidy. While there is this extraordinary expenditure I contend that I am entitled to bring in aid of it the extraordinary revenue which accrues to me by reason of the cessation of the War.
I have ceased to borrow to meet current expenditure; I do not propose to borrow any more for that purpose. But I have to renew my maturing debt when it falls due. I have been able, in the course of the current financial year, to make a great reduction in Ways and Means advances. Ways and Means advances are a pure creation of credit by the Government, on which the banking community in the normal course of business builds a second and third storey of credit. They are the source of the inflation of credit, which itself is the source of the inflation of the currency and the first step in the vicious circle in which we have been moving. I have made a great deduction in Ways and Means advances.

Mr. ASQUITH: Can you name a figure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. The figure varies from day to day and from week to week, and I am a little afraid to name it. Had I known I was going to be asked for it, I would have had the figure before me. It may be taken that I have made a very considerable reduction in Ways and Means advances, and I will use every effort to avoid recurring to them. But, as I said a moment ago, as long as there is this large floating debt I am not my own master. If the Treasury Bills run off I have no other resource but recourse
to Ways and Means advances. That brings me to the fact that I require co-operation in every quarter in order to maintain the policy on which the Government have set their hearts of first stopping further inflation and then beginning gradually to deflate. I need the co-operation of the financial community. What has happened is that as fast as I have stopped creating credit they have been creating credit, and that the extent of the advances made to trade and to private individuals is such as to endanger and to reduce the amount of Treasury Bills.
5.0 P.M.
I cannot view without some concern the extraordinary expansion of business in the promotion of companies. If I was sure that all this money really resulted in increased production I should find some consolation, but I am convinced that the time has come when a part of it creates only increased competition for the limited supplies of labour and material which are ail that are available. I must say that I think those who are capitalising and recapitalising old businesses on the basis of present inflated profits are entering upon a most dangerous course, are taking a great responsibility, and are laying up for themselves, if they continue to hold any interest in those concerns—and certainly for those whom they induce to come into the businesses as well as for the country at large—a very perilous future problem. I venture to take the opportunity to utter that word of warning and to invite financial circles in the broadest sense to realise that the deflation which they have called for cannot be carried out by the sole action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government, and that the prevention of the evil needs their co-operation and as stern a criticism of the demands for credit which are brought to them as I am expected to exercise over the demands for credit brought to me. I hope I have not travelled beyond the proper lines of this Debate. It is, as I have said, a continuation of the Debate of yesterday, and a very useful Debate in my opinion from which the Government have everything to gain, and for which they may well be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in an extremely difficult
position, and in the remarks I intend to make, I do not in any way desire to criticise him. I sympathise with him very much when he said that a fortnight or three weeks ago, notwithstanding the request not to embark on fresh expenditure, the House by a majority did so. I quite agree that the House of Commons is really a rather extravagant body, and I regret very much what took place on that occasion. May I make this remark, had my right hon. Friend come down himself on that occasion and spoken—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I ought to have been here.

Captain LOSEBY: It would have made no difference.

Sir F. BANBURY: If that is the spirit, what is the use of talking about economy and endeavouring to save money? We might, if it is, just as well go home and save ourselves the trouble we are taking to-day. I do not, however, think that the House as a whole would agree with the remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I desire to refer to the question of the Estimates Committee. An Estimates Committee was set up in the year 1910 or 1911, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think there was some discussion with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and certain other hon. Members who desired to set up this Committee. I saw that right hon. Gentleman and the present Prime Minister on the matter. The whole question then was, should we be interfering with the policy of the Government and taking responsibility of the Government on to our own shoulders? I think there was a unanimous feeling that we should not deal with policy. Even though we did not, let us take this case. Say that the Estimate for the Labour Exchanges was two millions, of which one million was for the erection of new offices, we could not interfere with the policy of the Labour Exchanges, but what we could do is this. We could look at the buildings and see whether the work could be carried on in the old buildings instead of erecting new ones, or we might find that ten clerks were employed to do work which could be performed by eight. We could submit those matters to the House, and it would be for the House to decide if our recommendations were to be followed.
When this Estimates Committee was first set up there was considerable doubt on the part of the then Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether it was a wise thing to do. After it had been set up, it was renewed every year without any objection on the part of the Government until the year 1915 when the War broke out. At the beginning of that year the late Mr. Gulland, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, came to me and said, "The only Committee we will set up this year is the Estimates Committee unless you would rather it was not set up," I said, I did not see what Estimates it would have to deal with as everything was being done by vote of credit and there would be no Estimates, and therefore in those circumstances I did not see the necessity for it. Who recommended that it should be set up?It was the Select Committee on National Expenditure presided over by Mr. Herbert Samuel, a prominent liberal who had occupied Cabinet rank. He took a very great deal of trouble over it and sent out questionaires to the leading officials and they were unanimous as to the setting up of the Committee, with a slight difference from what it was before, which would, I think, have increased its efficiency. After the last election, a Select Committee on National Expenditure was set up, and of which I was elected chairman, and that Committee unanimously came to the same conclusion as that which was arrived at by the Committee over which Mr. Samuel presided. During the investigation one of the chief officials of the State, a leading accountant, said to me, "The only chance of the House of Commons exercising anything like supervision over the Estimates is to set up the Estimates Committee again." During the time I was Chairman of the Estimates Committee I met a large number of officials, and the gentleman to whom I have referred is one of the most efficient in his particular line. He told me privately that the only way to keep an efficient check over the expenditure of the country was by the setting up of the Estimates Committee.
I want to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend to accept the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not know if the House realises what it means. The right hon. Gentleman who moved said that it was
an unprecedented Amendment, but I do not think that is so I have not had time to look up the different dates, but my recollection is that over and over again the House has refused to give the Government a Vote on Account for more than a certain period. I believe in the old days of Mr. Gladstone, when I first came to the House, and when there was a good deal more economy amongst Members than now, it was a common thing on the part of the Opposition, of whichever side, to say, "We will not give the Government a Vote on Account for more than a certain time in order, if we see there is extravagance going on, that we may have a check over the Government and require them to ox-plain." My recollection is that the period usually was from six weeks to two months. I remember well when a Vote on Account for four or five months was proposed, the horror of the old financial experts at giving such a long period without control to the then Government of the day. I am not particularly wedded to any date, but I think three months is quite sufficient to give an advance to the Government to enable them to carry out the particular work which they have in hand. I hope my right hon. Friends will take that request in the spirit in which it is made. Whether he will see fit or not to accede to it I cannot say, but I trust that he will, at any rate, give it his serious consideration. I do not think it will hurt him in the least, and it will give an earnest and an indication to the country that the House of Commons is really desirous of doing something towards economy, and that the Government are willing to assist them. These Civil Service Estimates are for the huge total of £557,000,000. I took the opportunity to obtain a White Paper, which I would recommend hon. Members to procure in the Vote Office, as it is sometimes rather difficult to get, which gives the Imperial Revenue collection and expenditure for Great Britain and Ireland, beginning, I think, with the year 1819 up to 1918, just 100 years. I turn to the expenditure on Civil Service Estimates for the year 1910–11, and the year 1911–12, that is before the War. I do not know what the House thinks the amount was, but it was 58 millions, as against the present Estimate of 557 millions. At that time the dead-weight debt of the
country was in round figures 650 millions, and the dead-weight debt at present is roughly 8,000 millions, or actually, I think, 7,900 millions. So that, roughly speaking, while the dead-weight debt has increased tenfold, the expenditure on the Civil Service Estimate has also increased tenfold.
There are certain factors which ought to be brought into account. First of all, in this 557 millions there is a sum of 123 millions for pensions to soldiers and sailors and their dependants, owing to the War. That, of course, is one of those items which we have got to meet. I think there can be no criticism on that item, except to say that I hope that the Minister of Pensions, human nature being what it is, is very careful to see that no frauds are committed by people who have applied for pensions. I am not at all sure that there are not some. There is that £123,000,000. An hon. Member says that amount will be less every year, but I remember what happened in the American Civil War, and instead of being less, it grew in the most extraordinary way. If you take that off, it leaves £434,000,000, as against £68,000,000. Then you have got to take off the alteration in the currency, to which my right hon. Friend alluded, so that, speaking roughly, the really comparable figures are £58,000,000 and £400,000,000. But surely that is enough in all conscience. If it was on the Army or the Navy, which are insurances against trouble, I should not so much object, but I cannot see what we gain by spending this enormous sum on the Civil Service. I know a, large number of people are being employed, and I am sorry for them if they have to lose their work, but I really think, in the situation in which we now find ourselves, it is absolutely necessary that some attempt at economy in this direction should be made.
There is an item, "Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)," £2,054,800, against £1,146,700 last year. Why is it necessary to spend double the amount of money on buildings this year compared with last year? I believe a large number of Members of the House and of the public are curtailing their expenditure very much. I am doing it myself: I am curtailing my
expenditure, and I do not like it, but I have got to do it, and that is what the Government have got to do, and that is what these officials ought to be made to understand, that even if the room is a little uncomfortable, or cold, or hot, in the state in which we now are, they cannot be having model buildings with every possible improvement at the present moment. The very next item is "Public Buddings, Great Britain," £4,523,300, as against £3,906,050 last year. There seems to be a mania for building, and whether or not this is good for the housing of the working classes I will leave to the hon. Members opposite. The Ministry of Health is down for £27,572,797—does that include houses?—as against £6,650,590. That seems to me an enormous increase; and then there is the Ministry of Labour, £25,000,000, as against £7,000,000 last year. Really, what on earth can the Minister of Labour be doing to spend £26,000,000 this year when he was content with £7,000,000 last year? I do hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment and that the House will really give some attention to this ever-recurring expenditure. I admit my right hon. Friend is in a very difficult position, and, as far as my small efforts are concerned, I shall be only too glad to assist him. Look at the price of Government stock in the papers to-day. How are we to go on with prices falling like that and expenditure going on as it is? The only thing which will pull us out of the fire is rigid economy by everyone in the House and out of the House.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am sure that all of us who happen to be young and, I am afraid, very inexperienced Members of this House are always grateful to the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down for his speeches on public expenditure. They are to many of us probably the best education and training in Parliamentary experience that we could obtain, but I am specially grateful for the speech which he has just delivered and for the references he has made to the bearing of expenditure on social reform. It is commonly imagined, I am afraid, not only by many Members in this House, but also by many writers outside, that Labour Members are committed to prodigal expenditure on State lines and that we have little or no regard to the tremendous debt which may be piled up and to the consequences of
that debt upon production and economic enterprise at large. This afternoon, if I may, I wish to try to make it perfectly clear that that is not the case. The Labour movement in this country, and I should think also in this House, fully appreciates the gravity of the tremendous expenditure upon which this country has been called upon to embark, and we fully appreciate its meaning in industry and in commerce. We do not defend from any point of view extravagance or waste, but we do argue strongly that in existing conditions at least a certain amount of expenditure is necessary and is justified in order to avoid, as we believe, a much heavier outlay in days to come.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) made a very strong point of Parliamentary and Treasury control, and on that head there cannot be the slightest difference of opinion among the Members of this House. Parliamentary control, our hold over expenditure and over taxation, are, of course, enshrined in the history of this country, and with that history is bound up, as we readily recognise, a very great deal of the liberty which we enjoy, but I think all of us must be impressed by this consideration, that both in Parliament and in the local authorities at the present time—one might say in representative institutions at large—the number of men and women who systematically devote their minds to the study of expenditure and taxation is comparatively small. That being so, huge sums are voted by Parliament and by the local authorities with very little debate, and very often, if one may say so respectfully, with very little understanding indeed. As a remedy, I have seen it argued, not only in labour but also in other circles, that we could profitably embark in this country upon some wide decentralisation in expenditure, that is, that we should confer greater powers upon the Departments, greater powers upon the local authorities, and indeed greater powers on representative individuals themselves. I confess frankly that I am unable to share that view. I think that both in the raising of money and in the expenditure of money there must be a very large element of centralisation, and I shudder to think of the state of affairs which might emerge in this country if we conferred such powers on local bodies as
led to a competition in expenditure, and led to their vying with one another in schemes of outlay, the result of which I firmly believe would be very much worse than the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
The alternative to me seems to be quite clearly that the control in Parliament and by the Treasury must be real, that we must try to educate not merely ourselves, but also the public, to the importance of the question, and beyond that that the control, particularly by the Treasury, should be intelligent. I do not use that phrase in any offensive sense, but I will make it perfectly clear by a simple illustration. We who are young and inexperienced in this assembly are impressed by the fact that the Treasury very often sanction huge sums of money, the expenditure of which we do not quite follow or understand, and then on some minor, but nevertheless perfectly necessary item, you find Treasury consent withheld. In my own City of Edinburgh quite recently we were engaged in training in a general subjects class a comparatively large number of discharged and disabled men. We trained them in that general subjects class until the vocational training to which they were to pass was available. A time limit of six weeks or thereby was placed upon our enterprise in that direction. The vocational training was not available at the expiry of the period I have named, Treasury consent was withheld, and we were compelled to turn into the streets and on to unemployment donation a number of men who had served their country in the War, had suffered in the process and were undeniably benefiting by the general and preparatory education which they were receiving under that scheme. I venture to think that an illustration of that kind, humble and minor as it may appear to be, rather weakens the faith of many of the people in the localities of this country in, shall I say, the intelligence of Treasury control.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded in his speech to the place of subsidy in the vast sums which we were called upon to spend. There again there is a common assumption that Labour is tied to the policy of subsidy, and that we should employ it quite largely if ever we happened to be in power in this country. I am travelling, perhaps, beyond the limits of this Debate in discussing policy
at all, but I may be permitted to make it perfectly clear that here again Labour is well aware of the disadvantageous and mischievous results of subsidy of almost any kind. We regard it as a financial, and an economic disease. We believe that it blinds the people of this country to the real position, not only of national finance to a Very large extent, but to the real position of the industry which is subsidised, and we would say that it might be better, and probably would be better, in the long run that a much higher price should be paid for an article rather than that we should subsidise an industry over a long period of months or years. But the situation which faces us is one very largely of expediency. We have got to chose between some national expenditure for the time being in a subsidy, or such increased price in commodities as would lead to increased demands for wages all round, and, above all—and perhaps it is more important—to such pressure on the life and well-being of the unorganised masses of this country as would really be more costly to the State in the long run than the subsidy which the State is called upon to pay. On that head, and with particular reference to the millions of money for subsidies included in the Vote we are now discussing, we should say that it is better policy to try to keep down prices, if we possibly can, in other spheres and in other commodities, and to maintain for the time being some subsidy, such as that on bread, to keep down its price until we can withdraw that in the midst of falling prices elsewhere, and so make the burden of an increased price for the loaf rather more easy to bear for the great body of our population. That is, roughly, our policy. Admittedly it is a very debatable point, and admittedly one of expediency in a difficult problem of that kind.
I come now from the labour point of view to attack, if I may, the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and the Liberal leaders who are associated with him in this campaign. I feel quite frankly that there is something hollow and unreal in these demands for diminished expenditure, for ruthless economy, for the cutting down of all outlay from the public purse, especially when they are not able to suggest one sphere in which substantial reduction can be effected. I do think the Chancellor of
Exchequer is entitled to ask where a reduction can be effected, and if we on this side cannot point out where a reduction can be forthcoming, then I think we should moderate the gale which we allow to blow on the Treasury Bench. We are all agreed upon the general principle of national and private economy. There can never be any doubt on that point at all. We as a State have had to pour out millions and millions of money, no doubt, for the quite necessary purposes of the War. Before I come to the second part of this argument, the point on which I really differ from the Liberal Members, I should like to admit at least a part of their argument, because I am satisfied that we are carrying into peace conditions a good deal of the spirit and tendency of the expenditure of the War. Some of us have had an opportunity of studying, not merely from without, but also from within, the practice and the policy of large Government departments during the trying years through which we have passed since 1914. We knew in these departments the cost was relatively unimportant. The supreme end everyone had in view was victory in the campaign in which this country was engaged, and the theory which seemed to pervade the minds of very large classes of men and women committed to economic measures was that we should pour out all the money possible in Order that success should be achieved. Now the victory has come, and we are in the second year of the peace, and we must ask ourselves whether there is any grave danger that we are continuing in existing circumstances the spirit of these departments during the war itself. I venture to think that that is true. There are many people who are still thinking in terms of a wartime scale of expenditure, and they are not effecting the rigid public and other economies which might be effected with perfect safety to the people of this country at this hour.
But, having made that admission, and having recognised that these circumstances obtain, I want to try to draw a distinction—the old distinction which is drawn by every political economist—between expenditure upon which there is no return, and expenditure which yields in the long run a real return to the State which gives it birth. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles has moved a reduction of £100,000,000.
There cannot be the slightest doubt that if his Motion were carried, there would be at least a temporary interruption—I shall not put it higher than that—in the expenditure necessary for great schemes of social reform on which we are now engaged. At all events, if the reduction did not hit these schemes, its influence and spirit would be felt in that direction. I object to this campaign of reduced expenditure so far as social reform and amelioration, is concerned. I do not accuse my hon. Friends for a single moment of trying to prevent all expenditure on these very necessary subjects, but I do say that the spirit of their campaign would seem to be directed against their fulfilment. It is to that I object. If we suppose for a moment—and I am quite willing for the time being to leave my Friends, and take it on broader lines—that expenditure on housing is cut down, that expenditure on necessary schemes of social reform is cut down, I do not suppose any Member of this House would dispute that in the long run the country would pay far more than it is called upon to pay now. We in the labour movement feel very strongly the close bearing of housing on industrial production, and that a great deal of the expenditure on education, for example, is rendered futile by the housing and other conditions under which the people live. I am willing to admit that that view is not confined for the time being to our own ranks.
If we keep that in view I think this becomes perfectly clear, that for the time being this country is called upon to pay a very heavy burden, that the generation of which we are members must carry a disproportionately heavy load, not merely of the financial provision which requires to be made, but a great deal of material and human effort which is necessary if we are to pass through this crisis successfully. I think we are also entitled to ask that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say at this hour whether the limits of taxation have been reached. We all recognise that if the taxation of the individual is carried beyond a certain point, it penalises and paralyses industry and output and general progress. But I do not think that anyone, taking the evidence of the Royal Commission on Income Tax on the one side or the revelations of many of the Committees who have examined war-time profits on
the other side, would dispute that there is still a large taxable reserve, or still a large foundation upon which we can rear a structure of taxation which should help the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country materially at this time. Personally, I should say that the economists who are now arguing that taxation can be carried beyond its present high limits—we must all admit that they are high limits—are probably on safe ground, and in the coming Budget and, in every consideration of the national position in finance, I should like to see that kept clearly and definitely in view.
There is only one point I should like to emphasise in conclusion. A week or two ago, in a Debate on housing in this Chamber, some of us tried to argue, when the question of raising money by local bonds or on national lines was under consideration, that a very great deal of capital at the present moment was being diverted to things which were not ministering in the best way either to the efficieney, the health or the happiness of the people. If I may say so respectfully, I am glad to find that argument corroborated this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He drew attention to the tremendous number of companies which are being floated now, and to the very large amount of capital which is being subscribed, and he indicated in conclusion that, a great deal of that capital was being applied to purposes which were not of immediate or urgent need in the State. I venture to think that there is no Member on the Labour Benches who would not subscribe to that view. These are all important considerations in any scheme for the rehabilitation of our national finances. I desire to make it perfectly clear that in any well-considered scheme of improving those conditions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may count on the support of the Labour Members, provided always he does not sacrifice that expenditure which we believe to be necessary for the urgent social reforms of the hour.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: No one could have listened to the speeches that have been delivered in this House both yesterday and to-day without coming to the conclusion that the case for real economy has been made out. I have felt that I would be lacking in my duty to the Government which I support, and to my
constituents whom I represent if I did not take this opportunity of calling attention to the grave state of public feeling regarding the continued lack of a sound policy of economy. I have received scores of letters each day, as no doubt other hon. Members have, and they threaten all kinds of things if we do not do our utmost to bring economy home to the Government. They have the idea that Parliament is not doing its best to try to improve the financial position of the State, and to endeavour to bring down the ever-increasing cost of living to the workers. It is not generally understood outside this House what the difficulties are which face the Government in this great work of reconstruction. Making all allowance, however, there are certain things which could be done at once to relieve the enormous expenditure to which this country is committed and to bring down the high cost of living.
I am going to concentrate my remarks on one item in the Service Estimates amongst the unclassified Votes, relating to the Ministry of Munitions—a sum of £27,323,000. No one appreciates more than I the good work done by the Ministry of Munitions during the War. They organised the national resources to supply our men in the field. Therefore I would not lend a willing ear to any charges of extravagance made during the War. But since the Armistice things are very different. The Armistice makes it our duty to insist on the most rigid economy and the winding up of all purely war-time Departments. No doubt there are many in Government Offices who desire to perpetuate some of these things. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Therefore we cannot expect them to propose to commit suicide. Our urgent and unpleasant duty, however, as custodians of the people's money is to insist that the generous view of expenditure taken during the War must now come to an end. The Ministry of Munitions at the present moment is holding up many million pounds worth of commodities needed by the community, not only in this country, but in almost every nation of the world. These goods should be sold. The policy of holding-up is due to the want of business knowledge of those who are in control of that Department. They have prevented big business deals which ought to have taken place a long time ago.
The direct cost to the country last year for the custody and disposal of surplus stores was something like £42,000,000. The indirect cost was the rise in prices-owing to the holding back of these goods—in the necessities of life, and this has added very considerably to the loss. The total value, this month, of stores held by the Ministry of Munitions is something like £700,000,000—a pretty large sum—the amount of our indebtedness to the United States.
I was very glad to see a statement that a sale of aeroplane stores has taken place with something like £100,000,000 involved. I hope the statement is true. The only comment I make is that it should have, or might have taken place a year earlier. I wish to impress upon the Government the necessity of getting rid of all these stores. They will benefit the revenue considerably, and there will be a saving in the cost of custody. It does not pay for the Government to dribble out stores as they are doing at the present moment. It is not their job. They ought to deal with the matter in a wholesale way. It is not only guns, explosives, and such-like articles that the huge stores represent. I believe about 90 per cent. of them are leather, pottery, furniture, textiles, building materials, and machinery. Note the financial loss in these things, and of the surplus stores held by the Ministry of Munitions, and deal with it side by side with the return of imports from abroad, principally from America, and hon. Members will see that we have been importing identically the same kind of goods which we held, and still hold, in very large quantities. In 1919 we imported nearly £12,000,000 worth of iron ore, scrap-iron, and steel. The Ministry of Munitions have a very large quantity of these. In the same year we imported £36,000,000 worth of iron and steel manufactures. The Ministry of Munitions is stuffed with goods of the same description. Let any hon. Member look around his constituency at some of the timber dumps belonging to the Ministry of Munitions; yet we imported over £72,000,000 worth of timber. We imported over £35,000,000 worth of textiles, excluding silk, whilst in the Ministry of Munitions are vast quantities of cloth and fabrics prepared for our Armies, and those of our Allies, and also for the women auviliaries of our Forces. I do not wish to burden the House with further figures, but I
should like to say that I desire to insist on sales being effected. Big deals have repeatedly been refused, due to the opposition of the Ministry of Munitions.
I do not advocate that these commodities should be thrown away at a sacrifice price, but the greater portion of these stores consist of commodities which are in very great demand, and any business man will tell you that it is an easy thing to sell goods required by all the world, and probably, too, at very good prices. It is necessary to apply sound business principles to the work of salesmanship. I claim that we have not done it, and are not now doing it. I would suggest to the Government that though the task may be painful, that they should decide to make a clean sweep of the Ministry of Munitions. I would give the disposal of surplus stores to a small body of, say, three business men of first rank. The first should be a great administrator, the second a big banker, thoroughly understanding the question of the exchanges, and the third should be a man of big experience in the wholesale trade. I would fix a limit of time, say 12 months, and would insist that these goods should be disposed of within that period.
By doing this we would do away with the enormous expense of custody. If nothing is done pretty drastically this will go on year after year. The sale of these goods would pull down prices by releasing promptly commodities required by everybody, commodities such as are in the list I have here—building materials, machinery, tools, stores, army boots, textiles, chemicals, metals, foodstuffs, and bicycles—a very long list indeed. The machinery can easily be converted from its War-time uses to create commodities for peace purposes. Let me give one particular instance. I understand that the firm of White and Poppe, of Coventry, made an offer of something like 70 per cent. of the pre-War cost for the buildings and machinery which they were operating during the War in making shells. This offer was refused; why I do not know. But I do know that the Ministry of Munitions refused to allow that firm to go on maintaining that machinery in running order. The fact is, that a Government Department is not fitted to discharge the duties of dealing with large surplus stores. A business scheme is much better. The Ministry should call together some of the
principal manufacturers and let them take over from the Ministry of Muntions the goods which have been manufactured. The price could be arrived at by arbitration, or, in any other way that might be advisable. Possibly it might be a business for 25 per cent. to be exported. This would help to bring down the exchanges. I consider that the Ministry of Munitions is not an efficient body for this work.
Just one more point—that is the case of an offer which was made in connection with Salonica. I believe it was a very big offer, running into many millions. It was refused on the ground that there was no prompt cash settlement. I ask hon. Members whether it is not better to get rid of these stores, which are only costing us money in custody, and sell them for money payable over a period, than to keep them as they are when they must be deteriorating very much. I have no desire to embarrass the Government in any way in their anxious task of reconstruction. But I do wish to point out one of the most obvious economies, and a step which, if taken, would ease the situation all round, reduce the number of useless officials, bring down the prices of commodities, and help to cheapen the price of food by having its due effect on our foreign exchanges.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I, with the leave of the House, answer a question which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Paisley, put in the course of his speech. It may be convenient for the House to have the answer at once. The right hon. Gentleman asked by what sum the Ways and Means advances have been or would be reduced in the course of this year. I should not like to attempt to name an exact figure for the year, but I think I may say it will not be less than £150,000,000, and it may be in the neighbourhood of £200,000,000.

Mr. ACLAND: Is that in this current financial year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. ACLAND: In the first place I should like to remove, if possible, a slight misapprehension on the part of an hon. Member who spoke from the Benches behind me as to what might be the effect if this reduction were acceded to by the
House. I may tell him at once it would not have the effect of stopping social reform. This is a Vote on Account and the effect would only be that, instead of the Government getting all the money they need to carry on till August next when there will be no further chance of criticism, they will have to come back to the House during the Session for a further Vote on Account, and that will give the House another opportunity of criticising their policy. I hope that statement may reassure my hon. Friend if he has any conscientious objection to supporting the reduction of the Vote in the division lobby. I have been trying to think over the question as between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his critics, and I think the right hon. Gentleman had some title to put upon the House of Commons some blame for negligence in the matter of securing economy of expenditure. In the first place, there is undoubtedly the fact of the small attendance of Members in Committee of Supply. But the defect goes further than that. It has been in recent years a practically universal custom, when using the days which are allotted to Supply, not to devote them to criticisms of the Estimates but to debate questions of policy. These days have been utilised as field days by Ministers to explain the glories of their Departments and the rest of the time has been used by Members in criticising the Minister's policy. I believe if the House is really disposed to criticise expenditure, it would do better if, as the Opposition has the power to do—no doubt in unison with the general feeling of the House—it selected for discussion during the 20 days allotted Supply, definite items on which they wish to criticise the amount of expenditure in the Estimates. Very often a Supply Day passes when nobody opens up the actual body of the Estimate which is laid before the House. It would be well if those who are responsible for selecting the Estimates to be discussed, would make common cause with other persons in the House who are interested in economy. We might then have a better chance of using our opportunities to advantage.
Members should be able to apply themselves to the figures of the Estimates and to try and justify a reduction of expenditure. But under present circumstances they are rather set to task of making
bricks without straw. There is no preliminary examination of these Estimates. If any such investigation were made the Estimates could be intelligently examined by a small expert Committee, assisted by a highly trained officer, as was recommended by the Public Expenditure Committee in a form as to which we have already had some discussion this afternoon. It is that which I wish for a few moments to deal with. I have tried to make some study of this question. It is unfair really for the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as was done this afternoon, or for the Secretary for War as he did a fortnight ago, to challenge the House and say, "Will you kindly put your finger upon a particular item of expenditure which you need reduced?" We think we can indicate a method of reviewing Estimates, or of enabling the House to review Estimates, which would bring particular items under review, but the Government by deliberately refusing to act upon the recommendations made over and over again by Committees of this House, providing for a different system of attacking the Estimates, have taken a course which makes its unfair for them to challenge us to produce particular items which can be criticised. The scheme which was placed before the National Expenditure Committee in 1917, really consisted of two parts which, however, hang together. The first part was that there should be a remodelling of the Parliamentary Estimates and accounts in such a way as to make them really significant and useful as an index of administrative economy. The second was, that there should be a standing Select Committee on Estimates, assisted by a permanent officer of the House—an Examiner of Estimates—which would investigate and report on the Estimates before they were finally dealt with in Committee of Supply.
The first point has not hitherto been in any large measure before the House, but it is just as important as the second, because the present form of Estimates is really the result of history and not of scientific accounting methods. It has been, in the course of our history, very necessary to prevent the King from devoting money which was intended by Parliament to feed the Army, to increasing the numbers or improving the clothing of the Army. Therefore, the whole of our Estimates have been devoted to the direct
appropriation of cash for particular payments, and they show the expenditure on particular subjects, such as—taking the Army, for example—on pay, food, fuel, buildings, and so on. But they stand in no relation whatever to the purpose of the expenditure or the results obtained from it. Therefore, the plan which was recommended by the Committee was to substitute the arrangement of the Estimates under "objects" for the ordinary arrangement under "subjects." Again, taking the analogy of the Army, we, should be able under such a plan to get at the annual cost of a garrison or a regiment, or, in the case of the Navy, of a ship of war or of a squadron, in so far as the subject matter admits. It is not applicable to all Estimates, but, at any rate, you would be able to see, when considering the Estimates for transport, what was the cost of transport per mile, or, in examining the Estimates for hospitals, you would be able to get at the expenditure per bed per day, and you would thus have some definite measure of the results obtained from the expenditure. That would, of course, involve a re-arrangement of our accounts, and, to some extent, a re-arrangement of the figures to come before the House of Commons. It involves the substitution of commercial for historical accounts, accounts which are really the survival of historical causes. You would have to have a statement on a commercial basis showing the income, and expenditure pertaining thereto, as apart from the Government basis of cash receipts and payments taking place within the year. Of course the scheme provided for the maintenance of the present cash basis for sums actually voted and included in the Budget.
Some progress has been made on these lines. The Army Estimates have been remodelled, and if and when they are published they will be on the new lines. The new Cost Accounts have been started in units of the Army, with, I think, very excellent results, because last year, in the Fourth Report of the Committee, they renewed the recommendations they had previously made, after taking evidence of the progress of the scheme in the Army, which showed, according to their Report, that Army officers were adopting a totally new attitude towards economy, and were initiating methods of saving, because the cost account became a
human document, showing something of the real results of the expenditure. Again, that scheme of business accounts for the nation, if followed up, would enable the results to be put before a Committee of this House, before they came down here for criticism.
Then I come to the other side of the Report of the Committee which has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). They both agreed, I think, that there should be a National Expenditure Committee, and that there should also be an Estimates Committee set up. It is interesting to recall what were the opinions of Members and Offcers of this House who have had long experience of these methods. You, Mr. Speaker, pronounced quite definitely on that point You said you believed that a Committee on Estimates selected from among real advocates of economy would have a salutary effect, that Government Departments had a wholesome dread of the Public Accounts Committee, and that it was to be hoped an Estimates Committee would also establish a funk among them. Further, you added that the advocates of economy got no look-in because they had no tie binding them together and no influence over the Whips. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, who was in the Chair only a few minutes ago, held the same view, and so did my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles. Sir Courtenay Ilbert was also in favour of the proposal. That is a very great body of the most experienced opinion of this House, which entertains apparently none of the fears the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman has quite definitely, in an answer he recently gave, turned the idea down. I want to offer to the House some arguments why his view ought really not to be accepted as final, and why this House should continue to press for a proper Estimates Committee to consider the Estimates, with the help of a trained officer, before they are dealt with on the floor of the House.
The argument on which the scheme has been rejected by the Government were four-fold. They were, that it would lessen the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, that it would weaken the control of the Treasury over expenditure, that such a Committee could not deal with
policy, that policy after all governs expenditure, and that an Examiner of Estimates would merely duplicate the work already done by the Treasury with a staff which needs a salary of £150,000 a year. I am afraid I cannot accept any of those arguments. The proposition that the Minister's responsibility to Parliament would be lessened, because Parliament became fully informed of the particulars, is a proposal which really only requires to be stated to be disproved. I believe that if the Estimates were subjected to skilled review before they came to this House it would result for the first time in the Minister becoming really responsible to an informed Parliament, instead of, as now, being very largely irresponsible. Take what happened the other day. I do not want to discuss the War Estimates, because that would not be in order. But when the Secretary for War asked us to specify items on which we wished to make a reduction, we only had three lines of Estimates before us on which to do it. There was really no Estimate for the War. Office at all, but a vague expectation was held out that one might be presented to Parliament. How much better would it have been to have had an Estimate presented which had been examined by a skilled Committee! Such a challenge as that to which I have referred could not have then been thrown out. It was, under those circumstances, really a farce.
The Minister, I think, would become infinitely more responsible to Parliament if there were that sort of review. I think there has been to some extent a misunderstanding as to what those Committees would do. It has been thought sometimes that a Committee of that kind would claim, as certain French committees do, to make amendments in the Estimates which involve new proposals or policy, but that was totally foreign to the scheme, which very carefully maintained intact the principle that no expenditure can be proposed except by a Minister in the name of the Crown. It was also thought in some quarters, again as a misconception, that the Select Committee on the Estimates would replace the Debates in Committee of Supply, in which the Minister, of course, has to face the whole House; but that also is not the scheme of the proposal at all. The Committee of Supply would merely have before it,
when it came to tackle the Estimates, the Report of the Committee which had been made upstairs with the help of the expert assistance which it would have got.
The second argument was that the Treasury control would be weakened by the setting up of these Committees. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Minister who wished to get his schemes approved would say, "Let them have a run for their money. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer approve them, and let me see if I cannot get them through the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons." The idea that Treasury control might be weakened is based on the idea that there is in most of these Estimates something that really can be called Treasury control. Again, I would ask, what Treasury control could there have been over that £125,000,000 for the Army? They cannot have controlled that Estimate. It has not been presented to them. It has not been published. It has not been prepared. Merely some total has been agreed to and the Estimates have to be worked out to agree with the total. There cannot be anything in the way of real Treasury control which could possibly be weakened whatever this House might do. My experience as Financial Secretary to the Treasury and in other offices tends to show me that strong Ministers of spending Departments who are really powerful in the Cabinet can take liberties with the Treasury and that they might not be able to take those same liberties if they had to face an examination of Estimates by a Committee of the House. One of the difficulties that one experiences is that, as far as correspondence with the Treasury goes, the views of the Departmental Financial Officer, who often could suggest ways in which the Ministers' policy could be carried out with less expenditure, are not and cannot be laid before the Treasury. The only views which are laid before the Treasury are the views of the Minister, and if the Minister is strong, even if the Treasury objects, he gets his Estimates through the Cabinet because he has a stronger personality than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary. But if it were known that the Financial Officer would be examined, as of course he could be, by a Parliamentary Committee so that the actual facts and administrative bearings
on the question would sooner or later become known to the public, it would in your phrase, Mr. Speaker, establish a function, and Ministers would be rather afraid of putting into their Estimates things which now they "an get through the criticism of the Treasury, but might not so easily get through the criticism of a small Committee of this House. There is this, too, which my experience of the Treasury suggests, that the present form of Treasury control of spending Departments rests on the correspondence between the officers of the Department concerned, and deals, no doubt, with principles and intentions and anticipations, but it never comes into contact with the actual facts and results of expenditure, and if you had these actual cost results worked out where it is possible to work them out, you would got far more effective control than the present control by the Treasury, which is based merely on elaborate regulations and limitations. The new plan of having really significant Estimates and accounts and of their examination by Select Committees has to be viewed as two cognate and collimated proposals, and if the accounts were presented in better form, intelligent criticism by the Committee would soon be a very valuable aid to the Treasury and no interference with its powers at all.
The right hon. Gentleman's third point was that it is policy really which governs expenditure, and that Committees of this kind should not be allowed to interfere with politics. I think that statement about policy governing expenditure is rather a dangerous half-truth. I believe large sums of money are continually being wasted because you select ill-chosen means for well-chosen ends. I believe very often, while allowing the Minister to obtain the end he requires, you can economise considerably if you will really examine into the means and adopt much the least expensive means for carrying out the policy which is wanted. We all agreed during the War that there was to be a bountiful supply of munitions of all kinds to the armies in the field, but that does not mean at all that we necessarily agreed to what we all know in many cases were absolutely reckless methods adopted for putting that policy into force by the Munitions Department which often resulted in a deplorable waste of money. I believe examination of officials before a
Select Committee with reformed Estimates before it would disclose facts as to what points of policy were really embodied in the Estimates and what were not, and that the total result would be that the Minister, when he came to meet the House here, would deal with a well-informed House instead of with a House which really cannot be informed at all as to the principles on which the Estimates had been built up. At present, the House has absolutely nothing but what the Minister chooses to tell him, and there is no real examination worth anything of the figures in the Estimates. They might just as well be Token Votes so far as our present system of real financial criticism is concerned.
Then there is the final point, that the examining of Estimates would really duplicate the work of the Treasury. The Treasury examination of the Estimates of spending Departments, where it is carried out at all, consists mainly in securing that the schemes of expenditure provided in the Estimates are in accordance with Treasury authority and that the details, such as establishments and rates of pay, are not varied without Treasury authority. It is an examination for the purpose of securing that the Estimates are really those of the Government and not those of the individual Ministers. But what is aimed at in this proposal of an Estimates Committee is something quite different from that. What we aim at is not control of Ministers by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though that is important enough We aim at controlling the expenditure of the Government by the House of Commons, which is quite a different thing having a quite different importance, for which there is really no adequate machinery at all at present, and the work of the examining of Estimates would be directed to that end. I think it will not be difficult to select an officer with actual experience of spending Departments and their ways and methods, and he, I think, could do wonderful service to the House and the country by acting as a secretary to the Estimates Committee, explaining to them the subject matter of the Estimates and assisting them to select points for criticism and lines of examination before the evidence of witnesses was taken.
Those are some suggestions that I make really to respond to the challenge that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer issued when he asked for practical suggestions. Until the Government has some method of real examination of the Estimates along the lines that the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has so often recommended as chairman of an important Committee, it really cannot be said that the Government has done all that it can to help the House in real examination of the financial proposals which are put before us. We know that the Debates in Committee of Supply tend more and more to fall into the hands of the advocates of increased expenditure and that it cannot by itself provide an examination of the administrative and economic merits as distinct from the policy of the Estimates, and it is rather a pity that the Government has turned down really constructive and thoroughly worked-out proposals for giving that real control of expenditure to the House which is one of its chief historical and constitutional functions. That cannot be done under our present system. I think it can be done under the system which has been several times recommended to us, and even at the eleventh hour I would urge that the question may be reconsidered and that the policy which has been so often and reiteratedly recommended by an experienced Committee of the House may still be accepted by the Government.

Mr. D. HERBERT: The hon. Member for South East Essex (Lieut.-Colonel Hilder) had what he described as an obvious remedy for certain expense. It is one of those cases where, as often happens, the obvious is wrong, and the obvious is more likely to be wrong when it is merely obvious to a person who looks at the establishment from the outside. The Ministry of Munitions has always been considered to be fair game for anyone who wants to accuse the Government of extravagance, and it is one of those cases which it is perhaps a little difficult to answer. One does not often get such an opportunity of pointing out one or two errors which critics of the; Ministry of Munitions are led into. I served in the Ministry for twelve months. I was there at the time of the Armistice and for a little afterwards. The work of the Ministry of Munitions at present is not merely a matter of disposing of surplus stores. It is all very well to say wipe off the Ministry of Munitions altogether and hand over the stores to a body to
dispose of. That is not all that would have to be done. The Ministry of Munitions was concerned in immense financial business undertakings through the War, financing manufacturers, controlling them in regard to their arrangements, and arranging for enormous extensions of business for the purpose of producing, war materials, with the result that, when the Armistice came, the Ministry was left with a very large amount of Government money outstanding owing by firms who had used that money in the national interest, and it was, and still is, the business of the Ministry to see to preserving that money and recovering it, and in many cases the recovery of that money, advanced for the purposes of the War, depends very largely indeed on the undertakings to which it was advanced being seen safely through the difficult transition from war work to peace work. That is a matter which takes a long time. It will not be over in many cases for years. Unless an expert staff of business men looks after that particular work the country will not only lose enormous sums of money, but you may have an immense number of failures which will be a very-great disaster to the industrial life of the country. We are all anxious to economise, while on the other hand hon. Members are being called upon by their constituents for further expenditure in various ways. One of the reasons why the Government can be and has been accused of extravagance by the man in the street has been that the Government has been driven during the War to engage in work which in peace and in normal times it has no right whatever to do. The Government has been engaged in industrial business and in business of various kinds. Where you have Government money involved you cannot have the efficiency that you would have under private enterprise. Where the expenditure of every penny has to be scrutinised by different Departments you must necessarily have an immense waste of labour and money. One of the quickest ways of getting back to something like a normal year will be so far as we can to clear up as quickly as possible all these legacies of the War which have left the Government controlling, managing and interfering in industrial businesses which ought to be left to individuals and to bodies of individuals under private enterprise rather than to the Government.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If the right hon. Member makes up his mind to go to a Division on this Amendment, I shall certainly follow him into the Lobby. I do not know whether other hon. Members feel as I do, but I must confess that I am getting very hopeless about this question of Government economy. I do not see any signs that the Government do really intend to reduce expenditure in the future to any great extent, and I do not see that any ordinary Member of Parliament has any chance of influencing the Government except by his Vote in the Lobby An ordinary Member of Parliament, an ordinary Back Bencher like myself, does not really have any influence by making speeches in this House or by making speeches in the country, or by writing in the Press. The only real influence which an ordinary Member of Parliament has in this House is by voting in the Lobby against the Government if he feels that he is justified in doing so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked to-day whether suggestions could be put to him for saving even £5,000,000 out of this colossal Vote of over £500,000,000. It would be perfectly easy to suggest a way in which far more than £5,000,000 could be saved. You have only to take the question of these new insurance offices. That entails an enormous expenditure. I have been talking to various heads of the great friendly societies during the last few weeks and they tell me, without a single exception, that they are perfectly prepared to take on the whole administration of the new unemployment insurance so far as their own members are concerned. I believe they could do it perfectly well. They have the whole organisation which they now use for health insurance, and they tell mo that in their expert opinion they can perfectly well deal with it. Instead of that, you are going to duplicate the organisation and yon are going to have these vast buildings and an enormous number of paid jobs created all over the country which are perfectly unnecessary. There is one suggestion where millions of money might be saved every year.
There is also an item in the Ministry of Munitions for a Vote of £27,000,000 or more. I cannot conceive why we want to pay £27,000,000 to the Ministry of Munitions. It is incredible that you want £27,000,000 for the Ministry of Munitions
two years after the War. What is the Ministry of Munitions doing at the present moment? I understand that the only duty of the Ministry of Munitions at the present moment is to get rid of its surplus stores. My, right hon. Friend opposite made a proposal which I think is a very sound one, that three gentlemen should be appointed, of business ability, of banking ability and of technical ability, at the head of a small staff and that they should get rid of the whole of this stuff as soon as possible. Yet we are asked to spend no less than £27,250,000 on the Ministry of Munitions in the coming year. I cannot understand it. It seems incredible that that sum is really required. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to enlighten us on the matter. We could also save money in the Ministry of Transport. The other day there was a long Debate on the Ministry of Transport, and I was very sorry the Minister of Transport was not present. I understand that he is ill, and I am sure he has the sympathy of the whole House. It was very unfortunate that he was not present, because in that Debate it was pointed out that enormous numbers of expensive appointments had been made in his staff for absolutely no reason at all, so far as we could understand. It was quite unprecedented so far as any Government Department was concerned, with the exception of three, in the whole Civil Service. You could save in that respect.
One notices that whenever the Government is in a difficulty they either accuse the Press of fostering an agitation or they accuse the House of Commons. I am getting rather tired of Government attacks upon the House of Commons. We were told to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we ought to exercise a little self-restraint. He said, "If hon. Members will not support the Government in their efforts to economise, the blame is on their own shoulders." That is a very vicious doctrine. If hon. Members will not support the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to resign his appointment. If any Departments ask for money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want to get the money, but the Cabinet insists that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall give them the money, then it is the business of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to resign. It is very unfair for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down here and try to shift his responsibility on to Members of this House. We have not that responsibility. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is of opinion that money that is asked for to be spent is wrongly spent, then it is his business to tender his resignation to the Prime Minister. Something really must be done to cut down expenditure. No case has been made out to-day for the expenditure of over £5000,000,000 of money on the Civil Service. I believe that this expenditure set a very bad example and is leading to much extravagance outside. I believe it is leading to a great deal of discontent also. We know perfectly well that it is not the cause nor the main cause of high prices, but it is certainly a contributory cause of high prices, because it is leading to extravagance. Therefore, for these reasons, if the right hon. Gentleman goes into the Lobby on this Amendment I shall be very glad to give him my support.

Mr. HOPKINS: I suppose there are very few hon. Members who do not regret the size of the Estimates. Most Members have the idea that the Estimates ought to be less than they are. It is equally true that no private Member can usefully or effectively criticise a single item in the Estimates, because we have not, and cannot get, the details that will enable us to do it. It is very difficult, therefore, for us to criticise. It is also very difficult for us to vote for a large general reduction of the Estimates unless we are prepared, like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, to vote against the Government. The Government make these matters, necessarily, a matter of confidence, and, much as we may desire that the Estimates should be reduced, we cannot be absolutely certain that they can be reduced. Therefore, it is very difficult to vote against the Government. One thing that has struck me very much since I have been a Member of this House is the extraordinary idea that exists in the country that the House of Commons has control over its expenditure. The House of Commons has no control whatever. The private Members have no power of control whatever over the Estimates. The Estimates are put before them, and they are defended by the Treasury. We have a pious hope that the Treasury is exercising control over the Departments, but
we cannot be sure that that control is strong enough to be effective. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in these days when economy is so important, to say to the heads of Departments that he will see them damned first. Of course, saying that in polite Treasury language. There may have been, and I hope there have been, strenuous fights behind the scenes. If the Treasury had not fought for economy in connection with these Estimates, perhaps they would have been even higher than they are. We have no certain knowledge of the struggles which may have taken place behind the scenes. If they have taken place, the results are, at any rate, disappointing.
It appeared to me that the remedy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago, of restoring Parliamentary control by having a Parliamentary Committee on Estimates should be adopted. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman held that view when he was sitting on the other side, or that he would hold it if he were again sitting on that side. But to the private Member it does seem that something in that direction is the only way in which Parliament can have some control over and knowledge of the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. Yesterday we had from the right hon. Member for Paisley what struck mc as a very remarkable statement. He said that the increase in currency has nothing to do with high prices, that that view was nonsense, and that anyone who held it was uninstructed or only partly instructed. I have the misfortune to fall into those categories in his view, because I think that there is not the slightest doubt that inflation such as has taken place in our currency has a great deal to do with the cost of living and even with the size of the present Estimates, because these Estimates would not be nearly so high if it were not for the increased cost of living making it necessary to pay very much higher salaries and bigger bonuses compared with normal times.
When you increase the currency, particularly when you increase it with a paper currency which has neither gold nor goods against it, the price of commodities must rise, and this rise, this inflation of our currency, has a great deal to do with the adverse rate of exchange against this country. Owing to that adverse rate of exchange we are paying more in currency for every article which we purchase from
abroad. A magnificent wheat crop has just been harvested in the Argentine, but when we come to purchase it we have to pay some 30 per cent. more at the present rate of exchange, because our currency is depreciated in the international markets. That is a very serious matter, and one which I should have thought it would have bean the first care of the Government to endeavour to rectify. To put our exchange right three things must be done. We must have a surplus, and a large surplus, of revenue over expenditure. That surplus can be produced only in one or both of two ways—increased taxation and increased economy. We must also endeavour to rectify the balance of trade, which is now so heavily against this country. That is also a question of taking one or both of two courses. One is by the heavy restriction of unnecessary or partly unnecessary luxuries imported into this country, and the other is by increasing our exports. If we can do both, so much the sooner shall we reach the goal. Finally, the object of having this large surplus and rectifying the balance of trade is that we may withdraw from circulation the unnecessary currency which we have in use, and burn it or pulp it. If we withdraw so many millions of money, and burn it every month, and the world believes that we are going on with that same policy of restoration, we shall find our exchanges improve abroad even more rapidly than by the amount of the surplus notes which we destroyed.
I do not think that the people of this country, who have been used for so many generations to an absolutely sound currency, have really understood the present position. Before the War we had, I think, a note issue in this country of something like £30,000,000. To-day we have something like £450,000,000. Although owing to the higher prices and the increased wages, we do require more currency in circulation, we do not require anything like the amount of currency which we have in circulation. Clearly, it ought to be reduced. A large portion of that currency is not backed either by gold or goods, and has no real value whatever, and does depreciate our currency in the international markets of the world, and causes us to pay high prices when we purchase abroad. It is bad for our prestige, and affects the cost of living of everybody in the country, and accounts partly for the enormous size of these high
Estimates, which are due largely to the high cost of living. I do not think that I shall have the courage—maybe it is lack of courage—to follow the hon. Member for Wood Green into the Lobby in favour of the proposal to reduce the Estimates, because I have not got the certainty that this large reduction can be made. If I had the knowledge which enabled me to be certain that that or even a smaller reduction could be made, I would not have the least hesitation in voting against the Government.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: I rise briefly to express the hope that the Government will at least on this occasion make some reply in winding up the Debate to-night. As a House of Commons man I feel disappointed that during these two days which we have spent, yesterday on the question of high prices, and to-day on the question of Government extravagance, departmental extravagance, the Government may not have felt that the Debate had any such damaging effect as to render a reply necessary. Still it is not as a debating society that we are met here. We are met here largely to suggest anything which may be done to allay the general unrest and suffering which the high prices now prevailing are causing, and to reassure in some way the country. The Prime Minister was here a great part of yesterday. Many of us hoped to hear him before dinner. Others expected that he might have replied later on, or if not he, then at any rate my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, as the subject of Debate was of more interest than any other subject to the country at large; but the Debate simply petered out after dinner, as all present felt, into hilarious jeers and laughter, on a subject which is so serious, which is admittedly causing unrest throughout the country, and is the basis of many of the greatest economic upsets that the country has ever seen in the matter of wages, while the country finds it increasingly difficult to recover those exports and that foreign trade which financial experts are constantly telling us is the one way to rectify the exchange which is against us. In addition the present slate of affairs is an almost intolerable burden upon the large voiceless mass of humanity in this country who do not belong to unions, do not earn high wages, are on the borderland of poverty, and have no one to champion
their cause. Surely the Government, in spite of the vast majority, which may make them independent of a few dozen of us who may vote against them in the Lobby at the end of a Debate, should put up some of their best men to take the opportunity of reassuring the country, if it can be reassured. Their silence is ominous. Surely we may hope to be able to give some guidance from these walls to that mass of people outside and that at least it may not be said that this House treats it with frivolity or with contempt.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I wish to support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Peebles, because it is only by supporting a Vote for a drastic reduction like this that we can hope to make those economies which, in my opinion, are necessary for the economic welfare of this country. We cannot go on indefinitely spending money which we have not got, and at the present time we have not got the money to pay this enormous expenditure. It is quite true that we have a mass of very inflated credits, and we have got paper money, but that is not wealth, as we find out quickly enough when we try to spend that money in foreign countries, especially in foreign countries to the West. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently well-educated in high finance to be able to criticise thousands of millions as the right hon. Member for the City of London has done, but if I may be allowed to criticise for a few minutes in humble thousands I shall feel that I have done my duty to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. Certain items appeared in the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport which were touched on very lightly by the right hon. Member for Peebles and the hon. Member for Wood Green. Those Estimates provide for no fewer than seven permanent officials, each of them with a salary of between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. At the same time I think that there are only three other permanent officials in all the other Government offices whose salaries are in excess of £3,000 a year. One can easily imagine the discontent and the dissatisfaction which that sort of thing must cause amongst the permanent officials in the older and, in my opinion, the more important Government offices, and it gives them a handle to demand
further rises in salary, which the country at the present time cannot afford to give.
7.0 P.M.
At the present time the country in general, and the Government in particular, are wilfully shutting their eyes to the fundamental relationships which exist and must exist between wages and prices and between the cost of living and the cost of production. They are wilfully raising salaries and at the same time they are wilfully raising wages, quite apart from the fact that they are not doing any good thereby, because the purchasing power of those salaries and wages depreciates every bit as quickly as they attempt to raise it. Surely it is pretty obvious in the world in which we live at the present lime, when the world-demand for almost every commodity is in excess of the supply of that commodity, and particularly when, under present circumstances and from the point of view of production, practically the whole of Europe is, so to speak, out of action, that the governing factor in the case of any article is the rate of wages which is paid in producing that particular article. At the present time we are not in a position to buy those articles from abroad. Take, for example, coal. The wages of the miners have been trebled during the last five or six years, and the price of coal has gone up three times and more. Take the price of bread. The agricultural labourer's wages have been put up by the Wages Boards at least double to what they were during the prewar period, and the price of broad has been almost exactly doubled. It would be much better if the Government would be frank. Let them say definitely: "We believe that it will produce greater content amongst the people to have wages high, even though the cost of living is also higher than before, rather than to attempt to reduce the cost of living if it will mean bringing down the cost of wages also." If the Government believe that let them say it, and I, for one, am rather inclined to agree with them. But surely it is nothing more nor less than hypocrisy to pretend that they are doing their best to reduce the cost of living on the one hand when, on the other hand, twice during the last fourteen or fifteen months they have stabilised wages at their war level by Act of Parliament and when Wages Boards are putting up wages practically daily. It is a vicious circle, which I know is hard to break, but it will have
to be broken sooner or later, or else the position of this country will be no better than that of Austria to-day, where things have not doubled or trebled but have been put up forty times and the cost of living has gone up exactly forty times also.
With all due humility, I am not criticising in millions, but I should like to offer one or two suggestions as to how quite minor and small improvements might be effected. It seems to me that at the present time some of our establishments abroad are being run on unnecessarily lavish lines. One still sees much too much khaki uniform in the streets and restaurants of Continental cities. One expects to see it in the occupied areas, and also on the lines of communication through Belgium, but what is all that khaki doing in France?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are now discussing Civil Service Estimates. There is no khaki in that.

Colonel WARD: With all due respect, I should like to submit that a soldier bringing home the Foreign Office letter-bag is, temporarily at any rate, in the employ of the Foreign Office.

Mr. SPEAKER: But the hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about soldiers in restaurants.

Colonel WARD: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker: Again, in a certain Continental capital which shall be nameless we have at the present time a Legation, a Consulate, a Passport Office and a Military Mission, each of which is occupying a large and expensive building and employing a large and very expensive staff. Surely we might follow the example of the French, who have centralised all these four Departments in the one building, and thereby effected a great gain in economy without in any way sacrificing efficiency.
Every effort should be made to improve the exchange value of the British currency. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will probably smile, and suggest that that is a counsel of perfection. I know it is very difficult, and it is up to the people of this country to help the Government in that respect by buying as little as they possibly can from abroad, and by getting that which is absolutely necessary to buy from abroad from those countries where the exchange is favourable
to us, and not from those where the exchange is adverse. We are only now beginning to understand what an important part the condition of the exchange plays in the cost of living. We see in Germany and Austria, where the exchange is in our favour, the cost of living mounting almost hour by hour, and in countries like Holland, where the exchange is in their favour, the cost of living has, although very little, already commenced to go down. Therefore, I implore the Government to do all they can to improve the financial condition of the country. That financial condition will rot be improved by bringing forward bloated Estimates such as we are confronted with to-day. I would ask the Labour party to support this Amendment, and I would remind them that, although it is the taxpayer who will directly pay this cost, it is the consumer who, in the long run, will have to suffer.

Colonel NEWMAN: We have been discussing enormous Estimates this afternoon, amounting to a total of £557,000,000. This huge amount, as the House well knows, will be raised almost entirely by direct taxation. We have lost altogether our proportion between direct and indirect taxation. This afternoon I got from the Exchequer a statement that we have, at the present moment, something like 3,500,000 effective taxpayers. It will be on that 3,500,000 people that the main part of the burden will be laid. I would like to ask the House what good it would do this 3,500,000 people to read tomorrow this Debate of to-day? Will they get much comfort from this Debate? How fortunate it is for all the Members here in this House that hardly any of those 3,500,000 people, who represent with their wives and families the most intelligent part of the population, and total something like 12,000,000 people, that they will not have the opportunity of studying this White Paper. Suppose a small taxpayer, with between £800 and £1,000 a year, to whom the visitation of the income tax collector is really a terror, sees on this White Paper that the Government are at the present moment spending £27,000,000 odd on the Ministry of Munitions; supposing he turns over to page 6 and sees Railway Agreements, £23,000,000; Coastwise Transport Subsidy, £978,000; Coal Mines Deficiency, £15,000,000; and items of that sort, what would he say? He would say, "Surely this Committee is
not worthy of our trust for not taking the Government sternly to task for these swollen Estimates." I agree that it is practically impossible for we back benchers to make much effective protest. The only effective protest we can make is to go into the Division Lobby. During the last six months, I suppose I have addressed more public meetings, composed almost entirely of taxpayers, than any hon. Member in this House I know the feeling these people have. It is one almost of despair; it is despair, anger and mystification. I would suggest that the Government should take the people into their confidence as far as they can; that they should tell them the truth, and explain the necessity for these things, openly and candidly, and why we have to spend £27,000,000 on the Ministry of Munitions. Give the reasons, and if you do that they may condemn you, but they will trust you. Up and down the country, wherever I go, there is a feeling that this Government is wasting money and that it could save money. I believe the Debate we had last night on the question of the increased cost of living will largely remove the doubts in the minds of the average taxpayer, but this Debate to-night will not. We have a far worse case with regard to economy to-night against the Government than we had in the case of coal. Against my will I shall go into the Lobby against the Government, in support of this Amendment.

Captain LOSEBY: I speak from a point of view entirely opposite to that of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am of opinion that the general tone of this Debate will do as much harm as good. I believe that the general acceptance, by hon. Members of this House, that the Government has boon extravagant, is calculated to do harm and is an injustice to the Government. I protest, as I did before, against the danger that may arise from this type of Debate, and in particular I would refer to a remark that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain), who twitted this House that it was always preaching economy, and then, a few days later, passing Resolutions that entailed greater expenditure on the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he regretted
that he was not present the other day to give an example when the House voted in favour of increased pensions to the police. I presume he referred also to pensions for the blind. That case was as well presented as it could have been by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, almost with tears in his eyes, protested against the extravagance of this House in alleviating the position of the blind. This House, as a House, has not protested, as far as I am aware, on any occasion against expenditure on ameliorative reform. It has protested, although I have not been one of those who protested, in regard to administrative extravagance. But this campaign in regard to economy has, I say again, been exploited by selfish people, deliberately and for their own object, to stifle reform to which the Government of this country is pledged. I protest against that, as it is a great danger. I am going to refer—otherwise I should have had no excuse for rising—to one particular item of £3,000,000 for increases of pensions for discharged soldiers. I protest against that, that £3,000,000 should have been £5,000,000. Had we redeemed our pledges, it would have been £5,000,000, and it would have been if this particular campaign had not been exploited in a manner in which it should have been exploited. In the Select Committee we had to tackle the case of a soldier's widowed mother. What have we promised her? We stated to soldiers, when the war was on, that no man, nor anyone dependent upon him, should be in a weaker position owing to the fact that he had served his country. Then comes the economy campaign. We say, "Here is a dependant who is getting 5s. a week," and then it is put to me, as it was in regard to the police—another moral obligation—and in regard to the civil blind, "How can yon preach economy and then ask for £5,000,000," or whatever the amount may be. My sole object in rising is to prot st against this perfectly right and proper economy campaign in regard to administrative extravagance, to which I am not an accusing party, being wrongly applied to measures of ameliorative reform which this House in its wisdom has decided upon. I say it is prostituting a right and proper campaign.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): I had not intended to take part in this Debate, and would not do so were it not for an appeal that has been made to me. Some comment has been made from some of the back benches on the other side of the House in relation to the Government's action. I hope the House will forgive mo for repeating, as I shall find it necessary to do, some of the arguments used both yesterday and today, because I have become very conscious of the fact that not all those hon. Members who have been speaking while I have been in the House during the last hour have taken the trouble to listen to the Government's reply upon these questions, with regard to which they say they are so much agitated. There are various considerations with regard to the rise in prices which may be described as platitudes. In the Press this morning some of them have been so described. But you do not get rid of the trouble by describing it as a platitude. For example, it is a platitude that the main cause of the rise in prices is a shortage of commodities; but when you describe that as a platitude you have not got rid of the shortage You have still got to go on, and get the production which will relieve the shortage. Again, it is perfectly obvious what the reasons for the shortage are. Every great war has ended with a period of high prices, and the reason is that, if you divert large bodies of men from ordinary peaceful avocations, and put them to the business of destruction, you are lessening the power of the world to produce, and you end with a shortage which necessarily results in higher prices. In order to point the moral of what I am saying, let me take one or two very obvious examples.
Wheat is high in price at the present time, for very obvious reasons. One of the greatest wheat-producing countries in the world from which we drew supplies, namely, Russia, has not sent us a ton of wheat for a prolonged period, and the same is the case with regard to Rumania and Hungary. Similarly, with regard to cotton, the production last year was 3,500,000 bales short of the pre-war prodraction. Again, in the case of sugar, the production this year is 3,000,000 tons short of pre-war production. That shortage, with a demand still as great as ever, and in some cases greater than
ever, necessarily produces high prices. May I labour this point just a little more. When people cry out that the Government must take drastic action with regard to these matters, they forget that they ace dealing with natural phenomena, which follow inevitably upon the causes which have produced them. You might as well ask the Government to take drastic action to stop a hurricane, or prevent a snowfall. It is perfectly true that in a hurricane you may advise people to take in sail, and I daresay that is part of the advice which some hon. Members have been giving us to-night; but to suggest that you can prevent a hurricane, or in some way suddenly get rid of it, is a futile sort of proposition to put before any practical body.
Let me refer for a moment to the prices of things like wheat and sugar and cotton, and see how little any Government can do. In order to eliminate any question of high freights, lot us take the price of wheat in the country of its origin; and, in order to get rid of any element which is dependent upon inflated currency, let us take it at the gold price in its country of origin. Wheat, before the War, sold free on board at New York—what is commonly known as No. 2 Hard Winter Wheat—could be bought there for 8 dollars; in 1920 it cost 20 dollars. That is to say, wheat in the country of its origin, and at gold prices, is 2½ times as dear to-day as it was before the War. Nothing we can do can alter that fact; nothing we can do can make wheat cheaper in America. Take, again, the case of sugar. The price of sugar, free on board in Cuba, prior to the War, was 2 cents per lb.; to-day it is over 10 cents per lb. That is to say, sugar in the country of its origin costs five times as much to-day as it did before the War, and nothing that this Government can do can alter that fact. Then, in the case of cotton, before the War it could have been bought f.o.b. at New York at 12 cents a pound; to-day it costs over 40 cents to purchase the same pound of cotton. Nothing that this Government can do can alter that fact. And so one could go on through the whole schedule of the raw materials which we are compelled to purchase from abroad. I hope, therefore, that the House will realise, and that the country will understand, that these are the inevitable consequences of a great War, in which labour has been diverted
from peaceful avocations, and that that cannot, either by legislation—

Major KELLY: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the price of food, or the Civil Service Estimates?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is quite relevant.

Sir R. HORNE: If I am travelling away from what the House would wish to hear, I am at least doing what I was asked to do by some hon. Members. I do not propose to labour this matter; I am only pointing out, and I hope I have done so with sufficient brevity and sufficient clearness, that these are circumstances with which no Government can contend, and I hope the people of the country will realise how limited are the powers of the Government in controlling natural causes and natural consequences. It has also been said that the rise in wages has been great, and that, undoubtedly, is another cause of the rise in prices. Coming to the Estimates which have been put before the House, and upon which the Amendment arises, the chief argument in connection with Government extravagance is, as I take it, that, if less is spent on the part of the Government, that would immediately have an effect in reducing the cost of articles sold to the people. That is a matter which the House will perhaps allow me one or two moments to explain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), in his speech yesterday, made the remark that increased currency is not truly the cause of high prices, and I noticed that in some of the newspapers this morning that statement is not entirely understood. At the risk of wearying the House by pointing out what, perhaps, is an elementary consideration, I would venture to say quite briefly what my understanding of that position is, and what is its bearing upon the Government's expenditure. When the Government borrowed money during the War, as it was compelled to do, it borrowed it from the Bank of England. What immediately followed upon that circumstance was that cheques were drawn upon that account at the Bank of England in favour of Government contractors who were doing Government work. The immediate result of that operation was that the contractor passed his cheques to his bank, and there
was created at his bank a deposit of his portion of the amount which the Government had expended on him. The subsequent transaction was this, that in order to enable the contractor to pay wages he demanded currency, and you had to create a certain amount of currency, not necessarily equal to the amount of deposit, to enable him to pay his wages. In that way what the Government borrowed from the bank became distributed throughout the country, partly in the form of currency and partly in deposits of these various contractors at their banks. In the ordinary case where the bank gives a loan to a customer that loan is given against goods, but in the case of the money which was borrowed by the Government there were no goods against the amount which was lent, for the reason that, as soon as the goods were created, they went into a process of destruction. The result is that to-day you have all this new credit created by the Government borrowing without any goods against the credit.
You have in the hands of the people a certain amount of currency notes and of deposits in banks, against which no goods exist at all. The purchasing power of the people has been enormously increased, on the one hand, while no supplies of goods have been increased, on the other hand, and as soon as you have a large purchasing power with a small quantity of goods against it, obviously the price of goods rises in proportion to the amount of money there is. The result is what is commonly known as inflation of currency, inflation of credit, and higher prices for commodities. It also works out similarly in relation to foreign exchanges, because you have not got the goods to give in exchange for the goods you have to purchase outside the realm. The result is that everything you buy becomes dearer, for the reason that you have not the commodities to give in the ordinary process of mercantile exchange. In the end, we reach the position that everything we buy costs us far more than it did before the War. I agree at once that in order to put that position right you must not only cease to borrow, but you must also pay off your debts. I need scarcely inform the House, because the point has been laboured several times, that we have already reached the point of paying off debt. The peak of the debt has been reached and we are now below
it. In the first three months of this year we have succeeded in paying off an appreciable portion of our debts, and, at the same time, we have reduced the amount of the notes in currency. We all hope that we shall be able, by the prosperity of the country, to go on with that very necessary process.
I turn now to a point with which an hon. Member on the other side is obviously more concerned—the question of Government extravagance. I have listened to two very interesting speeches during the last two days upon this question. I at first thought the speeches indicated that the forces of opposition Liberalism in this House had not yet succeeded in achieving unity of command, but afterwards I came to the conclusion that perhaps the battle scheme had developed according to plan. The scone reminded me of what was not uncommon on the Western Front in France during the first winter of the War. One afternoon, for an hour, a big gun boomed innocuously, and next day the Highland Brigade went over the top; but owing to the fact that the big gun had not done any damage, the gallant Highlander was generally held up op the enemy's wire. I hope my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) feels no anxiety on that subject. We shall be very glad to receive him, and to treat him kindly. Perhaps some day we may even capture the big gun. The pattern of our ammunition seems to be of the very same type which it fires. Leaving the field for the forum, I should like to say that I do not feel myself in a position to make any comment of value upon the speech of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). I was so much engaged yesterday in listening to a great master of speech, that I am afraid for a time my critical faculties were dulled. At the end of it, however, there came back to my memory a phrase from one of the speeches in the Paisley campaign, and so far as I can recollect, it ran something like this:
Let us not indulge in historical platitudes, in climbing heights or seeing visions.
I suppose that that had reference to some recently-disclosed climbing propensities on the part of Lord Haldane. The orator went on to say:
Let us settle down to the serious and humdrum task of rescuing the nation from the danger of its present financial position.
Well, I suppose, to-day we have had that hum-drum task, to some extent, performed
by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean). It is a humdrum task, but, believe me, all the Ministers of the Crown have been daily engaged on it for a very long time. The result may not seem to the House to be very satisfactory, but at least it is the best that we have been able to do, and I would ask the House to have some consideration for the great difficulties with which we are confronted. There is no doubt that our financial position is very difficult, but what the House and what many people seem to expect is that, although in all other relations of life we have to pay more for what we purchase, somehow or other a Government Department must be able to purchase the same thing for the same price as before the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley said yesterday that he noticed the Civil Service Estimates in the old Departments had increased in almost every instance. There is a very good reason for that. During the War the wages of every man in this country have been increased. Is it to be supposed that although the rest of us have to spend more on our food and raiment, the Civil Servant can by some miracle purchase his clothes and his food for the same price as he had to pay before the War? It cannot be done.
In addition to that fact many of the old Departments have taken on functions which they never had before. For example, the Colonial Office has a scheme for the emigration and settlement of discharged soldiers. That is a new burden since the War, and one which must be paid for. Similarly the Education Department is dealing with discharged soldiers at universities, and the Board of Agriculture is making provision for discharged soldiers obtaining an opportunity of making a living on the land. All of these things add to the Civil Service Estimates. There was some criticism by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite of some of the items in what looks like a very large bill of £557,000,000, but I would beg the House to realise how that £557,000,000 is arrived at. One item alone is £123,000,000, for pensions to soldiers and their widows. Is there anybody in this House who would reduce that amount? Add up the amounts which are concerned with the resettlement of soldiers and sailors who fought for their country—amounts for their training, out-of-work donations, etc., all of which the country promised to undertake for
them—and you will find that the amount for these alone comes to £22,000,000. Is there anybody who grudges that amount? Education accounts for an increase of £15,000,000. I take it that no one questions that amount either? Housing, about which everyone is concerned, is represented by £11,500,000. 1s there any Member who will go to his constituents and tell them he has voted against that amount? So I could go through innumerable items. There was an amount for the Ministry of Munitions which was questioned. If my hon. and gallant Friend had read the note he would have understood what that was. He did not take the trouble to read the note. The fact is that in the past the Ministry of Munitions Estimate has been inserted in these accounts at a nominal figure, and the reason was that the Ministry has been making enough by the disposal of surplus stores to pay for its running; but in the present year, owing to protests of several Members of the Committee, it has been put in at the actual amount it is estimated to cost, and instead of the sums that are received in the course of its transactions going to the Ministry of Munitions, they will go direct to the Exchequer. The result is the item we find here of, I think, £27,000,000. That will be far more than wiped out by the amounts realised from the transactions of the Ministry. So it ought to be, but it is not an increase at all in the amount which is being given for the Ministry.

Sir R. COOPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what 17,000 officials are doing to-day in the Ministry of Munitions?

Sir R. HORNE: That is no doubt a very proper question in the proper place, but it is not the point I am dealing with now. Whether or not the Minister of Munitions, for whom I am not responsible, is employing a greater staff than he ought, these are wholly unjustifiable protests, as the staff has not been increased by that £27,000,000 at all, and the account has only been put in a different form. The same exactly is true of the item which deals with the Ministry of Shipping. The House will understand that these two items amounting to £43,000,000 are put in a different form, and are more than compensated for by the revenue received by those two Departments. There is a sum of £45,000,000 for
the bread subsidy. Members may take different views as to whether there should be bread subsidies or not, but I think most of us at the present time would not be willing to do away with the bread subsidy altogether. At any rate, that is an amount which no doubt will disappear in the future. The item of £15,000,000 with regard to the Coal Controller is really an advance to the Coal Controller to the extent of £12,000,000, and is repayable with interest, in the course of the year. It is not going to be a permanent charge or even a charge in this year. There are £36,000,000 to Allies, and I do not suppose there is anybody who takes the view that we can get rid of these obligations. I have gone through all of the items I have heard mentioned and some more, and what I have stated is enough to explain a very large portion of this total of an amount which undoubtedly is somewhat large.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley finished his speech yesterday with a note of optimism, and I should respectfully like to join myself with his point of view. The financial position in this country is no doubt difficult, but there is no reason cither for apprehension or despair. At every stage of the country's history people have been troubled about the debt they had to pay after a great war. There is a very notable chapter in Macaulay's "History of England" in which he describes the origin of our National Debt and what the opinion of the people was at each stage. He points out how when the Debt was £50,000,000 at the time of the Peace of Utrecht people were in dismay as to how they would pay that amount He remarks:
At every stage in the growth of that Debt the nation had sot up the same cry of anguish and despair. At every stage in the growth of that Debt it has been seriously asserted by wise men that bankruptcy and ruin were at hand.
Macaulay describes how that despair grew when the Debt rose to £80,000,000 and in the time of the first Pitt to £140,000,000. He relates that David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, taking, as was proper, a parsimonious view of the situation, expressed his profound belief that we would never get rid of the burden of this Debt, and he was pressed to say:
Better for us to have been conquered by Prussia or Austria than to be saddled with the interest of £140,000,000.
Macaulay goes on to narrate how after the Napoleonic wars the Debt became £800,000,000, and comments:
It may now be affirmed without fear of contradiction that we find it as easy to pay the interest of £800,000,000 as our aucestors found it a century ago to pay the interest of £80,000,000.
I have not pointed out the increase of the Debt and the ease with which it has boon borne, for the purpose of leading anybody to believe that we ought to be careless with regard to our national finances. What I wish is not to inflate the currency of optimism, but rather to deflate the note of pessimism which is sometimes prevalent. In my view the country at the present moment stands on the edge of great opportunities. The whole world is anxious to obtain our goods. Our works and factories are overwhelmed with orders, and it only requires peace and activity in industry in order to bring about a state of great prosperity. The conditions are better than they have been at any time since the Armistice. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) ought to be congratulated by the House and the country on the successful stand that they have recently made for a peaceful solution of difficulties in politics and industry. If that spirit prevails and if we all combine to do our duty both in working and in saving, then I believe that we shall achieve in the near future great progress and prosperity. There are some people who are still troubled about our present condition, and undoubtedly we have troublesome times ahead. Our task is nothing less than to reconstruct a broken world. I am certain, however, that no one need despair of our country. Its recuperative power is as great and as expansive as the indomitable spirit of its people.

Mr. WATERSON: I do not know that I have ever listened in this House to a more interesting speech than that which has just been delivered. I think, at any rate as far as his preliminary remarks were concerned, they have been exceedingly sincere and exceptionally inspiring. I would take this opportunity of congratulating him upon the tributes that he paid to two of the Members of the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to some of the large amounts of money which were being spent upon
the various Departments. He mentioned especially the Ministry of Pensions, and on that our point of view is that we think the amounts ought to have been larger in order to do justice to our broken soldiers and to pay our tribute to the women left behind to cater for the children Reference was made by an hon. Member to the amount to be spent on unemployment insurance, and as to that we say it would have been far better to solve the question of unemployment and in that way save that expenditure. I listened very carefully to several hon. Members who offered criticism of the Ministry of Transport. I would remind those hon. Members that the Ministry of Transport is part and parcel of the Coalition policy. I think that the criticism levelled against that Ministry is not so much to increase the efficiency of the Government's policy as it is to make every conceivable attempt to cripple that Department to the detriment of the community. There is one item in the Civil Service Estimates of of £560,000 for emergency services. I do not know exactly what that means, and I think that the House, before it is asked to vote such a large amount, should have some explanation.
8.0 P.M.
I have risen specially in order to call attention to an item in the Home Office Vote of £200,000 for secret service. The Chancellor of the Exchequer early in his remarks invited us to say which service he could cut down. As far as the secret service is concerned, this is an opportune time for cutting down expenses in that direction. I am not going to be so foolish as to say that at this moment you can completely wipe out that expenditure of £200,000, but I do submit that there is the opportunity to lower it by at least 50 per cent. Here is a vast amount of money which is utilised for mean and despicable objects, which cause division, strife, and disunity among the ranks of industrial toilers of this country. To my mind it is not only a waste of money, but it is a waste of manhood, that men are prepared to sell their souls for a mess of pottage, and a waste of money and manhood to put forward a Vote for this money for the despicable work of espionage. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with questions affecting the international situation. He told us of the difficulties of America, and referred to the situation as far as Russia was concerned. In the course of his remarks
he told us that not one ton of wheat had for a long time come to this country from Russia. Who is responsible for that? We on these Benches, at any rate, can take no responsibility for it. If that fact to a large extent is responsible for the high cost of living, then the Government's policy as far as the blockade of Russia is concerned, stands condemned. In order to meet the situation and these Estimates, the Government should remove that blockade and immediately secure some wheat for this country, and that will have a tendency to lower the cost of living and be beneficial to the country as a whole. I would like to say in conclusion how much I appreciated the concluding portions of the Minister's speech. I hope he will see his way clear to give to the Home Secretary my expression of opinion in regard to the Secret Service, that he should endeavour to reduce the Vote from £200,000 to £100,000; and if the whole of the Departments concerned will take seriously into consideration every small amount, we may at any rate secure some noticeable reduction in the Estimates in the coming year.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The Minister of Labour, in his defence of the Government, suggested that those who supported the Amendment would be reflecting on the social programme of reconstruction which the Government are proposing, but I submit that that is not necessarily so. I do not think you will find in the speech of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) one word of criticism against the valuable social programme of reform which the Government have outlined, but there was very drastic criticism of waste and expenditure in the Departments, and the further purpose that the House should have the opportunity of reviewing from time to time the various activities of the Government, no matter how necessary they may be. We should all agree that it would be false economy to cripple or reduce the social reforms with regard to pensions, with regard to insurance benefits, or with regard to other admirable proposals of the Government, but when you come to the Ministries of Munitions and of Shipping, I submit that the right hon. Gentleman's defence was not altogether sound. He said that these huge sums, amounting to £43,000,000, were less than had been spent
before, hut, surely, such a sum shows an extravagance and an establishment of a bureaucratic kind which is altogether uncalled for in these days when national economy should be the first purpose. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in addition to rigid economy it is most necessary that we should obtain increased production. I would like to draw attention to the Government's policy, or want of policy, with regard to one of the larger industries on the north-east coast, namely, the production of iron and steel. The Minister said it was very necessary to re-establish our foreign exchange, and that one reason why the exchange is so much against us is the excess of imports over exports. We have all seen in the trade returns for January and February that, unfortunately, the balance of trade, instead of being increasingly in our favour for those two months as compared wth December, is going in the wrong direction.
What are the Government doing with regard to the question of increasing our exports? On the north cast coast we have our iron industries starved because of the lack of facilities for obtaining coke in order to make iron and steel, and at the same time the Board of Trade are permitting the export of coke in large quantities from the Durham and Northumberland ports, going out of this country and Gripping our own industries, keeping our own blast furnaces and iron and steel works on a limited production, whereas if the coke, instead of being exported, was used in those works, we should be able to increase tremendously our export trade in iron and steel. The Minister said the world is clamouring for our goods. We have a plant here working to only half its capacity because the Government allow to go out of the country the very coke fuel for those works which it is necessary they should have if they are to increase their output. The Government say we are getting for our coke £6 or £7 a ton, and that that is going to swell our exports. On the other hand, if that coke were used to make the finished iron or steel, instead of getting £6 or £7 a ton for our exports, we should get £12 for pig-iron, £24 or £30 for rolled steel, or £60 a ton in the case of sheets. Therefore, I say that if the Minister of Labour would look into that and see that our home industries are fed, we should be able to increase our exports and find greater employment for those employed in those industries, and we
should thereby be able to restore the balance of trade, which is such an essential factor in production, I would respectfully urge the Minister of Labour to look into that matter, in order that our trade exports in the coining season may increase and that the balance of trade, which is so much against us at the present time, and which is increasing the inflation of credit, should be rectified.

Sir R. COOPER: I desire to make a very strong protest against the position in which the Members of this House are placed in dealing with the Estimates now under discussion. We are asked to-night to vote £240,000,000, and there is only one item, one of £1,500,000 in connection with the Board of Trade, for which there are any details available. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour appeal to the House to point out where the Government might be saving money, how can Members of this House possibly do such a thing when they are asked to vote an enormous sum in regard to which they are not permitted by the Government to have the smallest vestige of knowledge what the money is for? That is particularly applicable to the case of the Ministry of Munitions. I do not understand that the £27,000,000 for that Ministry, of which £12,000,000 is now wanted, has anything to do with the disposal of goods, but that the money is wanted for the expenses of the Department, for the establishment it maintains, and for its 17,000 officials, who are engaged on work which, I venture to think, no Member outside the Government can possibly understand. When an appeal is made to the public in general to economise in every possible direction, it is a very serious matter indeed that there should be a widespread belief that the Government is doing almost the opposite, and it makes it very difficult for hon. Members in their constituencies to do what the right hon. Gentleman very properly demanded that they should do, and that is to realise the difficulties of the Government, and to realise that the Civil Service Estimates, like every other expenditure in this country, must cost more or less double what they did before the War. We realise that, yet we feel that there are many directions in which, with a proper will and determination, large sums of money could be saved.
One case was raised by an hon. Member to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, and which I see is being brought to the notice of the public generally, and that is the £2,000,000 which is being asked for Labour Exchanges. Quite apart from the question as to whether Labour Exchanges in themselves really do serve a great purpose in industry, and for the benefit of labour, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, under present circumstances, when the Government is appealing for labour to build houses which the community want to live in, the Government might at least make some temporary arrangement which would obviate that expenditure of £2,000,000. There is one other point that has not been referred to, so far as I know, in this Debate, and that is the Profiteering Act Department, for which £180,000 is asked in those Estimates. I say, cut out that £180,000 absolutely, or, alternatively, and preferably, make your Profiteering Act a reality, and make it of some service to the community in general; at any rate, let it be a real check upon the claims that are made throughout the country that there is an enormous amount—an unreasonable amount—of profiteering on the part of employers and capitalists. My last remark is just to remind the Government and my right hon. Friend that some time ago there was a very capable Committee appointed to consider the question of finance, and it gave, I believe, a unanimous recommendation that before Estimates are presented to the House, some Committee of able men should have the opportunity of examining those Estimates and informing themselves sufficiently to enable—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that that subject has been discussed two hours already this afternoon. The hon. Member must not travel over the same ground.

Sir R. COOPER: I am sorry I was not aware of that, as I was not in the House until about three hours ago. All I would say on that matter is that the appeals made to the Government in that direction should receive serious consideration, or, alternatively, the Government should realise the unfair position in which Members of this House are placed, and should consider what steps should be taken to enable this House to carry the responsibility, which it ought, of passing the
Estimates, or else of being in a position to stand up and criticise the Government with a real knowledge of the facts behind them.

Mr. BILLING: rose—

Sir R. HORNE: Might I remind the House that, by arrangement, the Division is to be taken at a quarter-past Eight? I hope the House will adhere to that arrangement.

Sir F. BANBURY: Might I appeal to my hen. Friend, who was a Member of the Committee? He agreed, and we agreed, that we should divide at a quarter-past Eight. The whole advantage of an arrangement of this sort is that the arrangement shall be kept.

HON. MEMBERS: We have every intention of keeping it.

Mr. BILLING: As 65 seconds still remain, may I appeal to the Government not to judge the strength of the feeling in this country in connection with profiteering by the weakness of the criticism of the Opposition? That is by no means a measure of the strength of the feeling. At the same time, may I appeal to them not to be stampeded by newspapers, but really to endeavour to view the position of the new poor in this country, the men with fixed incomes, and set thorn an example by cutting their coat, as these men are obliged to do, a little more in accordance with the income of the country?

Question put, "That '£241,040,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 80.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Addison, m. Hon. Dr. C.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hickman, Brig. Gen. Thomas E.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hiloer, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hills, Major John Waller


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy


Baird, John Lawrence
Denison-Pender, John C.
Hood, Joseph


Baldwin, Stanley
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hopkins, John W. W.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Duncannon, Viscount
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Barnston, Major Harry
Edge, Captain William
Hudson, R. M.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Elveden, Viscount
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Jesson, C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Johnson, L. S.


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Blair, Major Reginald
Forestier-Walker, L.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Kellaway, Frederick George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gardiner, James
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Gardner, Ernest
Kidd, James


Breese, Major Charles E.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
King, Commander Henry Douglas


Bridgeman, William Clive
Gilbert, James Daniel
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement


Briggs, Harold
Glyn, Major Ralph
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gould, James C.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Butcher, Sir John George
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Lindsay, William Arthur


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Carr, W. Theodore
Gregory, Holman
Lloyd, George Butler


Casey, T. W.
Greig, Colonel James William
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lonsdale, James Rolston


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Lort-Williams, J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Lyie, C. E. Leonard


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hallwood, Augustine
Lynn, R. J.


Churchill, Ht. Hon. Winston S.
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Lyon, Laurance


Clough, Robert
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachle)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Macmaster, Donald


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Haslam, Lewis
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Cope, Major Wm.
Henderson, Major v. L. (Tradeston)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rae, H. Norman
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Macquisten, F. A.
Ramsden, G. T.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Maddocks, Henry
Rankin, Captain James S.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Raper, A. Baldwin
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Martin, Captain A. E.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Taylor, J.


Mason, Robert
Roes, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Matthews, David
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Middlebrook, Sir William
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Mitchell, William Lane
Renwick, George
Tickler, Thomas George


Moles, Thomas
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Vickers, Douglas


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rodger, A. K.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Morison, Thomas Brash
Rothschild, Lionel de
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Morris, Richard
Royden, Sir Thomas
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Morrison, Hugh
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Mount, William Arthur
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)
Whitla, Sir William


Murchison, C. K.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Neal, Arthur
Seager, Sir William
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Nield, Sir Herbert
Simm, M. T.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Parker, James
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Pearce, Sir William
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Pennefather, Do Fonblanque
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Porring, William George
Stanton, Charles B.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Starkey, Captain John R.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.



Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Stevens, Marshall
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Stewart, Gershom
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hayward, Major Evan
Robertson, John


Atkey, A. R.
Hinds, John
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hirst, G. H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnstone, Joseph
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spoor, B. G.


Briant, Frank
Kenyan, Barnet
Swan, J. E. C.


Bromfield, William
Lawson, John J.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cairns, John
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallace, J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
MacVeagh, Joremiah
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Mallalleu, F. W.
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbralth, Samuel
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Glanville, Harold James
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
O'Grady, Captain James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark



Hallas, Eldred
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hancock, John George
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Mr. Hogge and Major Barnes.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [8TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUB DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20. Class II.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including the Foreign Claims Office, Foreign Trade Department, War Trade Statistical Department, and News Department."
2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £73,550, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 318t day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department
Colonies, including a Grant in Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement.
3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Special Services arising out of the War.
4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [10TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Unclassified Services.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £181,061, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including sundry Charges in connection with Transportation Schemes under The Ministry of Transport Act, 1919."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Shipping."

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Compensation to Canal Companies and Canal Carriers in the United Kingdom arising out of Government Control, and for Advances to Crinan and Caledonian Canals."

Class II.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions."

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Mis Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31 at day of March, 1920, for meeting
the Deficiency of Income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914."

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £99,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for a Grant in Aid of the Forestry Fund."

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,320, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."

8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,324, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."

9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc."

10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £105,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays, and certain Special Expenditure in connection with the Purchase and Storage of Pickled Herrings."

12. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £47,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London (including Grants for the Higher Education of ex-officers, etc.), of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums and for the Irish Public Health Council, and Expenses under the Inebriates Acts."

13. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants-in-Aid, and the Expenses of the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland, and certain Special Services in connection with Food Production."

14. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."

15. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,226, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, Ireland, including sundry Grants-in-Aid, and including the cost of certain Special Services arising out of the War."

16. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,868, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 51st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Surveyor of Ireland."

Class III.

17. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General, and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; for the Costa of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."

18. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,406, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."

19. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."

20. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners."

21. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the
inspector of Reformatories, and for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain."

22. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."

23. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,990, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."

24. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,900, be grunted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."

25. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."

Class IV.

26. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £39,793, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants in Aid."

27. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."

28. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £371,194, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland."

29. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending' on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland."

Class VI.

30. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £210,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate, and Additional Allowances, and Gratuities under sundry Statutes for Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities, and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."

31. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,146, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain."

32. "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for a Grant in Aid of the Mission of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Australia, Now Zealand, etc."

33. "That a sum, not exceeding £530,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of certain Emergency Services arising out of the Railway Strike."

Class VII.

34. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the payment of Old Age Pensions in the United Kingdom, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for certain Special Charges arising out of the War, including additional allowances to Old Age Pensioners."

35. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £88,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants-in-Aid)."

36. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Expenses in respect of advances under The Housing Act, 1914, sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1918, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."

Unclassified Services.

37. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,085,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement of the Ministry of Labour, including Out-of-Work Donation and the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of The National Insurance Act, 1911, and The National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916, and Grants for the training of Demobilised Officers."

38. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,802,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet the Deficiency arising under The Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and the cost of carrying out the recommendations contained in the Interim Report of the Chairman of the Coal Industry Commission, dated 20th March, 1919, and for kindred purposes."

39. "That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to provide for Advances to British Exporters."

40. "That a sum, not exceeding £680,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for such of the Charges for War Bonus, etc., as have not been otherwise provided."

Revenue Departments.

41. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,115,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs and Excise Departments and certain special Charges arising out of the War."

42. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come ill course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."

Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1919–20.

43. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, namely:

£
£


Vote 3.
Medical Establishments and Services
20,000



Vote 5.
Educational Services
…
16,000


Vote 8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, & c:—


Section I. Personnel
355,000



Section III. Contract Work
5,366,000



Vote 11
Miscellaneous Effective Services
2,383,000



Vote 12
Admiralty Office
106,000



Vote 14
Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances
228,000



Vote 15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities
81,000






8,555,000


Less Surpluses on:—


Vote 1.
Wages, &c., of Officers, Seamen and boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, Women's Royal Naval Service, and Mercantile Officers and Men
812,000



Vote 2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
462,000



Vote 6,
Scientific Services
104,000



Vote 8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:—


Section 11. Materiel
6,269,000



Vote 9.
Naval Armaments and Aviation
798,000



Vote 10.
Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad
109,990






8,554,990



Net Amount

£ 10"

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On the question of the Ministry of Shipping I want to get a definite statement from the Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am glad to see here at present, seeing he was not present when this matter was discussed in Committee as to the method by which the Government proposes to deal with the profits arising out of the sales of ships. It is within the knowledge of the whole House that during the War a large number of ships were constructed by the Government from funds raised on loan in this country. These ships, having been completed, are now being sold, as we are told by this Vote, to private persons. As I understand the Vote, the fund realised by the sale of these ships is being treated as the ordinary and normal income of the country, while the money borrowed with which to build those ships is treated as part of the permanent debt of the country. To my mind that is the most unsound finance that this or any other country could possibly adopt. Any business concern which borrowed money to build ships and then sold those ships and treated the money received therefrom as part of the normal income of the year would be on the straight road to bankruptcy. What would
be manifestly unsound finance for any private company must also be unsound finance for any country. What I want, therefore, is a clear undertaking from the Government that the money derived from the sale of these ships—and they may have been sold for far more than they cost—shall be used primarily for paying off the money which was borrowed in order to build them. I do not object to the surplus being used in relief of taxation. What I do object to is the ridiculous position of treating the sale of these ships as revenued white the debt which was raised in order to build them stands perpetually against the Exchequer of the country. No Treasury official could support that, and I cannot believe it is being done by the Minister of Shipping. When this matter was discussed in Committee he assured us it was not what was being done; but anyone who reads what occurred must be somewhat suspicious of the way in which this matter has been treated by the Government.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I see the Secretary to the Treasury is in his place, and I shall be very much obliged if he will give us one of his lucid explanations of a chance remark which fell from two Ministers in dealing with this Estimate, as to what really was the effect of taking the results of realisation of those war stores and applying them by way of appropriations-in-aid. On the face of it it makes the position of the particular Department concerned one of great satisfaction as
between debit and credit. I understand that some arrangement has been come to by which these realised and realisable war assets go direct to the Exchequer, and I shall be very much obliged to my hon. Friend if he will give us some explanation on that point.

Mr. BILLING: With reference to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) I would, if I may, join in his general protest, and I would even carry it a little further. I submit that the profits of any transaction of this kind should not be allowed to take the form of indirect taxation. I object to the principle. It is not only unsound, but it is unfair, for it enables the Department to acquire a vast amount of money. It is not only in this question of shipping, but it is also the case in reference to food and everything else, that wherever they are making profits by turning over vast sums that profit is drifting into the Exchequer, and they are having at their disposal considerably larger sums of money than they otherwise would have. Further, they are increasing the taxation of the country and bringing us nearer to that time when they will break the camel's back by putting on it the last straw. They are putting the last straw on the back of the taxpayer. It is because I consider it is not only unsound financially—and we know that the finance of all Governments is unsound from a commercial point of view—but because I realise that if any business firms continued on this course they would soon be forming a queue in Carey Street, that I wish to enter my most emphatic protest against the way in which money is being squandered. In fact, I think the Government are obtaining money from the taxpayers under false pretences, and, therefore, I trust we shall get a reply from the Treasury commensurate with the importance of the question.

Mr. MYERS: I should like to draw the attention to the House to two sections of this Estimate, and to point out also that this is not alone a question affecting the Ministry of Shipping, but that it also affects other departments. The first section to which I particularly wish to draw attention refers to the sale of ships, and I want to contend that the action of the Ministry of Shipping in respect of these sales has been altogether unsound policy.
Public discussion which took place in the country with reference to the possibility of the Government taking hold of the shipping of the country gave rise to a great measure of hostility in some departments of shipping activity, and one Noble Lord deliberately declared that if anything of that nature were attempted the shipowners of the country would sell their vessels, would go out of business, and would leave the Government to do the best it could. At that time the Government had quite a number of ships under construction, and a very definite shipping policy had become part of the Ministry of Shipping's activities. Ultimately it was found that quite a number of vessels were on their hands and steps were taken to dispose of the boats. We find by statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT that 260 vessels, built in the United Kingdom, which cost £36,300,000 to build, were sold for £47,900,000, yielding a profit of £11,600,000. These were vessels built in the United Kingdom. 119 vessels, which were built abroad on the order of the Government at a cost of £26,400,000, were sold for £17,200,000, thereby involving a loss of £9,200,000. Taking both transactions together, the profits on the one side being £11,000,000 and the loss on the other side £9,000,000, the estimated profit on the whole was £2,400,000. Carrying the position still further, the Government had 249 contracts running for vessels in various stages of construction.
All these contracts were transferred to the Noble Lord who announced to his shareholders what the shipping interest would do if the Government took any steps in the direction of the nationalisation of shipping. Lord Inchcape was the fortunate purchaser of these vessels and contracts, and the result of that policy has been to press very hardly on the community in all directions. The distribution of these ships has resulted in numerous joint stock companies being floated, particularly in South Wales, round particular vessels, sometimes one boat and sometimes two, and the newspapers have been recording the floating of these companies round these particular vessels, and the announcement has been set forth in the columns of the newspapers that a ship had been purchased at a given price and at the current rate of freights the price of the vessel would be realised in its earning capacity in two or three years' time. In the public Press
to-day we find that the Kestrel Steamship Company, with a capital of £32,000 in 1916, has made £49,000 profit in one year, and that Company is built round one particular vessel. The Globe Shipping Company, with two steamers in 1916, made profits nearly equal to the entire paid-up capital of their concern, and they have since, during three years, paid 22 per cent., 25 per cent., and 32½ per cent. The W. and C. T. Jones Shipping Company, with a capital of £280,000, have made profits in one year of £197,000, in 1916. They have since paid 30 per cent. in dividends, and their assets at present include over £1,000,000 in cash and War Loan, and numerous instances of that sort could be produced in the shipping interests of the country. I have here the names of two vessels. One, which was purchased in 1905 for £26,000, was sold in 1915 for £145,000. Another, bought m 1912 for £17,000, was sold in 1916 for £178,000.
The policy of the British Government in selling these ships has been a definitely contributing factor in the direction of the rise in freights. When we were discussing the question of the food supply the other night we were told from the other side of the House that the freights upon grain to this country were four, five, six, and ten times higher than they were before the War. The policy of the Government has assisted that upward tendency. If the Government had retained the ships which were in their possession, kept them on the water, utilised them for doing the work of the country, and entered into competition with private shipowners, they would have brought down freights in all Departments. Other countries have seen the necessity of adopting that course. The Government of Australia not only kept the ships they had, but had others constructed and also purchased ships which have been used for the purpose of doing their own work, and the result has been a reduction in freights. The Canadian Government have followed suit. They have kept their own vessels upon the water and constructed others, and others are in course of construction, and in order to challenge the high freights which were prevailing have taken action on their own behalf with very definite results. But the whole policy of the Government in respect to their shipping deals has been to play right into the hands of the shipowners. Instead of reducing
freights, the Government, by their policy, have assisted to increase, maintain and sustain freight charges in all Departments. If the Government had retained the ships they had in their hands there would have been no need to ask for a loan to assist the Department. They would at least have had a share of the spoil in the profits which are being made in the shipping industry and they would have been able to earn great sums, having regard to the rate of freights at present prevailing. If the opposite effect had prevailed and the operations of the Government in shipping had resulted in bringing down freights, it would have cheapened the foodstuffs of the country and helped the industries of the country by bringing cheaper raw materials from overseas, and the Shipping Ministry, instead of being criticised and challenged, would have brought upon their heads the blessings of the entire community, because their action would undoubtedly have resulted in bringing down the price of foodstuffs and raw materials and benefiting the community in a general way.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) was anxious to know whether certain Appropriations-in-Aid would be surrendered for the purpose of paying off debts. The simplest thing for the Committee to do is to consider the financial arrangements that prevailed during the War. It was perfectly impossible, year by year, to know what the expenditure of various Departments, especially those connected most directly with the War, would be, and it was for that reason that the system of token Votes was adopted so largely. The putting down of a token Vote implied a recognition of the fact that it was impossible to prepare an Estimate, and in the same way token Appropriations-in-Aid were put down, because it was impossible to say what the value of the Appropriations-in-Aid might be. Everything that was spent during the War was charged to revenue, and it would have been impossible to earmark this or that piece of expenditure for what in commerce would have been called a capital account. The revenue which was raised in the course of the year went as far as the amount allowed towards paying for the expenditure of the year. The balance that was left over remained, and had to
be paid for in some form or another by borrowing, and a large portion of that surplus expenditure must ultimately fall on the country in the shape of a loan of one kind or another. Similarly, whatever was received was received in the way of what in commerce might be called revenue; or similarly, if anything was received by the sale of something that might conceivably have been charged in commerce as a capital account, that alike was treated as cash revenue. Until the financial that is now closing, the accounts of such services as were included amongst the token Votes were balanced by the Appropriations-in-Aid, and in any case where there was a balance on the credit side, that balance went into the general revenue. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), I may say that we have felt, and I think rightly felt, that now that we are emerging from a position of war, and now that peace has been made, it is time to put an end to that system, because under that system it is a matter of very great difficulty for Members to keep track of the various transactions in the Estimates. Therefore, for the forthcoming year, we are presenting substantive Estimates, comprising the Vote of the Ministry of Shipping, and both in regard to that Vote and other similar Votes in the forthcoming year, such considerable items as have hitherto been treated as Appropriations-in-Aid will be paid directly to the Exchequer to the credit of the general revenue of the year. If the accumulations on this account are so large that, in addition to taxation, they show a surplus, that surplus will be devoted directly to the redemption of debt, but until a balance of the national accounts is reached, these sums will be taken for revenue.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: I rise to refer very briefly to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers). I do not follow him in his disquisition upon the subject of the nationalisation of shipping, or on the desirability of the Government running ships in competition with private owners. Another occasion would be more appropriate for that. I will content myself by saying that I can imagine no business less fitted for that style of management than shipping, which, after all, is an international business, a business not confined
to this country alone, but having ramifications, and possibly diplomatic and commercial complications in every part of the world; a business which has been built up pre-eminently upon the spirit of private adventure and enterprise, and which depends just as much upon that spirit to-day as it ever did. The hon. Member referred to certain remarks made by a certain Noble Lord. I read the remarks of the Noble Lord, which pointed out the inevitable tendency which would ensue if the policy which my hon. Friend opposite favours were adopted by this country, namely, that the inevitable economic consequence would be to drive out from this country private enterprise and initiative, and having failed to find its proper scope here, it would be forced to find its proper scope in developing the mercantile marine of other nations. I know he does not mean to be unfair to the Noble Lord. His apparent unfairness is probably due to lack of knowledge. He referred to the Noble Lord as having been the fortunate purchaser of a number of Government ships. I would like him to explain in what way the Noble Lord was fortunate in the purchase. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the details of the transaction.

Mr. MYERS: I know that the Noble Lord purchased these vessels and immediately passed them on to his fellow shipowners without charging any profit upon the sale.

Mr. SHAW: If that point was in the mind of my hon. Friend it would have been fairer to have mentioned it, because after somewhat aggressive epithets he used the phrase "fortunate purchaser," and left an unfortunate impression upon hon. Members who may not know the details of the transaction. That enterprise was carried through in no sense as a private speculation, but carried through at very great personal inconvenience and personal expense, and it was done for the public service and for the public service alone.

Sir J. D. REES: I cannot allow this Vote to pass without expressing my complete concurrence with the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Shaw). The hon. Member opposite has spoken, as my hon. Friend behind me delicately hinted, without a complete apprehension of the situation. The fact is that, of all industries in which Government competition is to be
deprecated, there is no industry which is so unsuited for their competition as that of shipping. As regards the reference to the Noble Lord, that transaction was to the last degree public-spirited. The Noble Lord ran considerable risk by performing that great public service, and it does seem to me to be a regrettable circumstance that on an occasion like this an hon. Member, perhaps unwittingly, should have conveyed an entirely contrary impression. I had not intended to speak in this Debate, but, as the hon. Member opposite has made his remarks, I take the opportunity of expressing my complete and utter disagreement with everything he said, both expressed and implied, and to emphasise the fact that he spoke unwittingly without the slightest acquaintance with the subject.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): We must not develop into a general debate on nationalisation. The only question is whether certain ships mentioned in this appropriation-in-aid should have been disposed of.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: My hon. Friend (Mr. Myers) has been criticised for something unfair which he did not mean to do. At the same time there is a very large amount of truth in what he said. When Lord Inchcape made the purchase of ships from the Government, which involved a cost of £33,000,000, he reported the same to his follow-shareholders in the P. & O. Company. He regarded it as a very great bargain, and he used these words in reporting the matter to the shareholders: "I felt, as I am sure you all feel, that it would have spelled disaster all round if the Government had been obliged to run these ships on their own account, and that it was worth some trouble and risk to prevent this." Lord Inchcape here is making a statement that he got the best of the bargain, and in view of that statement, I think that what the hon. Member has said was quite justified and ought to have been accepted in a proper spirit.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This seems to be one of the grossest pieces of waste that
could be found in the whole of these Supplementary Estimates. We are apparently paying £1,500,000 as compensation to the canal companies to keep up the pre-war dividends. That is what I understand this Vote is for. Moreover, in this Vote I do not see any per contra items of receipts from canals owing to higher freight charges. As far as I can understand from this Vote, there is at present a dead loss every year on canals, and I understand that we are to continue this policy for three years more. I protest that, though it may have been necessary—I do not think it was—during the War to guarantee the dividends of shareholders in canal companies, now that the War is over it is iniquitous that the taxpayer should continue to be taxed for years to come in order to make up these dividends. If I can find anybody to go into the Lobby with me against this Vote, I shall certainly divide against the Government. There can be no possible justification for this Vote, except this, that no capitalist is to lose anything by the War. Of course, canals cannot pay at the present time, but why should we take from the taxpayer money to make good dividends for canal shareholders when we do not make good the pensions of those people who find that their pre-war pensions purchase only half their pre-war value in goods? This is a piece of class legislation in the interests of capitalist shareholders and is detrimental to the whole of the body politic. I protest against this sum being-voted in this casual way without any discussion in order that we may be committed for years to go on paying this extraordinarily high ransom to this form of capital.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend has taken the line which he has taken in resforence to this particular Vote. So far as my information goes the Vote is not in the least likely to benefit the shareholders in canals or secure them dividends. The subsidy included in this Vote is for the purpose of trying to restore something like a proper balance of transportation services in this country. The fact is that owing to the railway subsidy there was cheap transport for goods on the railways, with the result that canals and the coastwise services were being starved out of existence. It was not the question of benefitting
shareholders or owners of canals that was taken into consideration. The question was, how to try again to obtain a current of traffic upon the canal and the ships which ply along the coast in relief of the congested state of the railways in order to enable the canals to pay those higher rates of wages which my hon. and gallant Friend advocates in this House and which every Member of this House has realised it is just and proper we should pay. Without this subsidy canals cannot carry on their business. The policy of the Minister since he came into office has been to endeavour to settle the balance somewhat by raising the freightage charges in respect of railway carriage.
The canals are divided roughly, as I estimated on the Estimates a week ago, into three classes. Roughly one-third are railway owned. Therefore they come into the railway account and are the subject of financial relationship between the Government and the railways. Another one-third are controlled under the provisional Defence of the Realm Act Regulations and another one-third have been uncontrolled altogether. All the canals are now asking the Minister to take them under control under the provisions of the Transport Act for the purpose of enabling them to raise their freights so that they may become something more like self-supporting. One of the most difficult problems which the Minister has to consider to-day is with reference to the future of canals. On the one hand we are told, with very influential support, that the present policy is starving the canals out of existence. On the other hand, my hon. and gallant Friend says that there ought to be no subsidy paid to these canals at all. The result would be that they would become derelict.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: A good job too if they do not pay and the railways do. Traffic should travel by the cheapest route.

Mr. NEAL: That is a perfectly intelligible point of view to take—that the policy of this country should be to starve its waterways out of existence.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If they do not pay

Mr. NEAL: But I would advise my hon. and gallant Friend to consider the matter
a little more closely before he forms a final judgment. There are large manufacturers on the banks of the canals who are dependent for supplies of raw materials and coal upon canal transport, and in many places canals afford a cheaper mode of transport between two different points. It certainly is an alternative mode of transport, and these are not days when the Government would be wise to scrap any form of transport which offers an alternative relief to the congested state of the railways. I have said many times in answer to questions, and in Debate a week ago, that the whole subject of canals is fraught with difficulties. If they were to be brought into a state of complete efficiency, if routes were to be established, if upon the canals there were to be put a fleet of boats owned by the canal companies, who are now in most cases trusting to the casual supply of boats owned by others, that would involve a very large expenditure with reference to that particular form of transport. All I can say is that this Vote is essential for the time being. There is no pledge that it will be continued indefinitely or even for three years. For two-thirds of the canals there is no pledge whatever. As far as the other one-third, the railway-owned canals are concerned; they stand or fail with the financial arrangement with the railway companies. This is not a new Vote. The House has affirmed previously the wisdom of these subsidies, and I shall be very glad if it will allow us to have the Vote now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How many years are we committed to this subsidy?

Mr. NEAL: We are not committed at all to a subsidy as such. That is not the correct word. We are committed to certain financial relationships with the railways for a short period longer. I have not the accurate date in mind, but, unless there be some further legislation or arrangement, I think the present arrangement expires next year. There is no committal to subsidies of canals as such. The question of trying to make them self-supporting by giving them an opportunity of raising their rates and charges is receiving the closest consideration of the Minister with the advice at his disposal, both financial and other.

Sir J. D. REES: I am afraid that I do not quite understand my hon. Friend. As
far as I can make out, before the War the railways were crushing the canals out of existence. We were told that the Northwestern Railway rendered the great canal that runs alongside it unnecessary. It was there, but it was not used. I understand that it would not be in Order to discuss the Vote in aid of canals, and that it is only in Order to discuss the excess amount of £200,000. Why is that additional sum now required?

Mr. NEAL: I did not deal with the details, but, as to £90,000, it arises from the destruction by fire of the buildings of the Bridgwater Canal. The policy of the Government for many years has been not to insure. The Bridgwater Company was told not to insure. Its buildings, with contents belonging to other people, were destroyed by fire, and there is a charge in respect of that. The balance is due to increased wages and matters of that kind which have come along and have called for larger expenditure.

Sir J. D. REES: That explains the excess, which, I take it, is all that is relevant to this Vote, and in that case I have nothing more to say.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite correct. This is a small Supplementary Estimate, and not the original Vote, which would re-open the question of policy. We must confine ourselves to the question of the additional sum.

Mr. WATERSON: I want to ask a question with regard to railway-owned canals. Is it the intention of the Minister of Transport to develop railway-owned canals? It was in 1845—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is just what I meant. That is a question of policy which cannot be debated on this Supplementary Estimate. We must confine ourselves to the £200,000 additional that is required.

Mr. HOGGE: On the point of Order. The Vote for the Ministry of Transport is a new Vote, and the canals are taken under the Ministry of Transport for the first time. It is part and parcel of the new arrangement by which the Ministry of Transport will deal with the whole question of transport. In that case, are we not entitled on this occasion to discuss the policy of railway-owned canals in
antagonism to the management of the railways by the Minister of Transport?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. If the hon. Member looks, he will see that the House has already passed a Vote of £1,230,000, and that committed the House to the policy for the present year. It can only be discussed as if there has been a change of policy since the original Vote was agreed to.

Mr. HOGGE: I accept your ruling, but I rather gather, since this £1,230,000 was granted, that the canals have been brought under the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. NEAL: That is not so,

Mr. HOGGE: If that is not so, I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is here to reply on behalf of the Canal Commissioners. I will, however, leave that matter. This extra £200,000 is largely explained by a grant of £90,000 in respect of a fire. We have had this kind of thing before, and the House ought to determine—this is an occasion on which we can point to a notorious example—whether it is a wise policy on the part of the Government not to insure their property. In this particular instance, the taxpayers of the country have been called upon to provide £90,000 in a capital sum which might have been covered at a very small risk with any insurance society in the Kingdom. It might be worth the while of the Government inside their own buildings to construct a scheme of insurance to carry these risks. It is obviously bad business, and certainly not respectful to the House, to include 50 per cent. of a Supplementary Estimate as damage by a fire. I would like to know whether the Treasury from the point of view of policy, have any large experience in this question of destruction by fire. I have heard Debates in this House as to whether the Government could carry on this insurance inside their own Departments. I should like to know whether that has ever been considered, and whether, in view of a large loss of this kind, the Government are prepared to reconsider their policy. There are additional charges for water. Presumably, that means water in connection with canals. There you have in an incidental sentence, the kind of thing that some hon. Members have been trying to get at in the criticism of these Estimates. The canals
of this country either are worth developing, or they are not. From time to time suggestions have been made that canals might be easily closed as canals, and opened up as roads for motor traffic.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a long way from the Supplementary Vote.

Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps it is a long way. I will try to come a little nearer. We have here a Vote of £200,000, only £90,000 of which has been explained.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member was not in the House when It was stated that £90,000 was loss by fire and the remainder was for increased wages.

Mr. HOGGE: In that case, what are the incidental charges for water? It is quite an easy answer to say that £90,000 is in respect of loss by fire and the rest is in respect of wages, but what this says is that there is a certain additional charge for water, and I am pointing out that that means that the canals are being filled with water. I respectfully submit that we are entitled to ask on that sentence what is the policy of the Government with regard to these canals.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not dispute my ruling. This is a Supplementary Estimate, and it is quite clear that questions of broad policy must be dealt with on the Main Estimate.

Mr. HOGGE: May I close the matter by asking one simple question from my hon. Friend opposite? What is allowed for the additional charges for water, and what is the water required for?

Mr. NEAL: Perhaps I may answer that. It is about £10,000 in one canal, owing to the failure of certain pumping arrangements which were previously in existence.

Mr. HOGGE: Which canal?

Mr. NEAL: I think it is the Bridgwater Canal, but I am not' certain.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. BALDWIN: This is the first time that this Vote has appeared, and I think a few words from me would be in place. It will be within the recollection of the House that an Interim Forest Authority was set up about 16 months ago, and in the Estimates last year £100,000 was voted for their use for purposes of forestry, in anticipation of the creation of the Statutory Forestry Commission. An Act of Parliament came into being last autumn, and when that Act came into being about £16,000 had been expended of the £100,000 which was voted for the Interim Forestry Authority. Therefore the balance of that Vote was surrendered, and we may say that about £84,000 or £85,000 of the £99,000 which we have on this Estimate is a re-Vote. The Act of Parliament gave what was, in effect, a Grant-in-aid to this Statutory Commission which was set up by that Act, and the Grant was one of an amount not exceeding £3,500,000 to be expended over a period of ten years. This year is the first, and this sum, which is the first sum which will be charged against the amount specified in the Act, is the amount which is required to carry on the administration of and the operations of the Forestry Authority until the end of the current financial year. It may be of interest to the House to know the Parliamentary conditions under which this Statutory Authority acts. The Minister responsible for the Vote is the Secretary to the Treasury, because the Treasury is the Department that supervises and sanctions the allocations of the grant that is sanctioned in principle by Parliament; but there is provision in the Act that an annual account is to be prepared and presented in every year before 30th September to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Comptroller and Auditor-General examines and criticises these accounts in exactly the same way that he examines and criticises the accounts of all the Government Departments, and he will have to present a return to Parliament showing those accounts and whatever he may think fit to say upon them, by the first of each January. Similarly, that the House may be kept in touch with the work of the Commission, it is the duty of the Commission themselves to prepare a report each year to Parliament showing what progress they are making in the great work which has been entrusted to them. What I have to speak about is the
financial aspect of this Estimate, and the House will notice that the £99,000 is divided up into various sub-heads, the titles of which, I think, are explanatory.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What does subhead E mean?

Mr. BALDWIN: In answer to that, I would be glad to give my hon. and gallant Friend details, but I think details of what is being done will come much better from one of the members of the Forestry Commission who happens to be a Member of this House. There are two Members of this House on the Commission, the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. F. D. Acland) and the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Forestier-Walker), and my right hon. Friend will be quite willing, if the House is desirous, to say something about the work of the Commission so far. But I think it would be of interest to the House to know who the Forestry Commissioners are, because in the Debate which took place in the early stages of the Interim Forestry Authority a good deal of interest was shown in that matter, and some of the names I then gave as being the names of gentlemen who might be induced to serve on this Commission met with a good deal of approval in all parts of the House. The Chairman of the Commission is Lord Lovat, the best-known forestry authority in the United Kingdom, and his salary is £1,650 a year. The Technical Commissioner is Mr. R. E. Robinson, with a salary of £1,450 a year. The unpaid Commissioners are Lord Clinton; the right hon. Member for Camborne; Mr. T. B. Ponsonby, who represents Irish interests; the hon. Member for Monmouth, who represents Welsh interests; Colonel Steuart-Fotheringham and Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, who represent Scotland; Mr. Hugh Murray, salaried Assistant-Commissioner for England and Wales; Mr. John Sutherland, who occupies a similar position in Scotland; and Mr. A. C. Forbes, who holds a similar position in Ireland. Mr. A. G. Herbert is the Acting Secretary. Any Members of the House who may be familiar with forestry work will agree with me that a stronger and more representative Commission from the three Kingdoms and from Wales could not be got together.
I do not think it rests with me to say any more. The finance, as I have said, is
explained very clearly in the Estimate, and I am sure that the House will listen with a great deal of interest to the right hon. Member for Camborne when he tells us something of what this Commission is doing in a branch of work which appeals to all of us who have the interests of the country at heart. It is a branch of work that many people of all kinds and all views of political thought have taken a great interest in for many years, and many of us regard the creation of this Forestry Commission as being the creation of a most necessary body and one whose advent in this country has been too long delayed. I commend this Vote to the House.

Major W. MURRAY: Before the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Camborne, replies, I should like to ask him one or' two questions about the work which the Forestry Commission is doing. I should like to ask whether the State forests that have hitherto been in the hands of the Department of Woods and Forests have now been handed over to the Forestry Commission, and, if not, when it is likely that that will be done. I should also like to direct his attention to Votes E and F, which provide sums of £62,500 and £12,950 for forestry operations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether any of that money has been spent on clearing land for afforestation. I presume that a good deal of it has been spent on planting operations, and perhaps he can tell us what number of acres have been planted this year, or are going to be planted before the present planting season is over. If he would go a step further, and indicate the kind of trees which it is intended in the main to plant, I think it would be of considerable interest. I put that to him because it appears to me that, in any of these big State forests, the main crop should consist of trees which are well known, which have come to maturity in this country, and which have proved their usefulness—trees, likewise, that are indigenous, rather than trees of the newer classes in regard to which so many experiments have been made. I do not mean to say that experiments are not required, but my point is that the main crop of the older class of trees in these State forests should be very much larger than that of classes like the Japanese larch and the Corsican pine, which are still in the experimental stage.
Again, I know that new forests are being started here and there, but I should like to know what has been done in the way of nurseries. Has there been much expenditure in making new nurseries, and are all the trees that are being planted in the new forests all grown from seedlings which have been planted in this country? I mean by that that I should like an assurance that none of the seedlings or young plants that are put out have been brought from abroad. Then there is item F, which refers to forestry education. I am afraid I do not quite clearly understand what kind of education that is and to whom it is given, and I should be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could inform us as to that.

Mr. ACLAND: It gives me very great pleasure to give some reply on the points that have been raised. In the first place, I should like to explain something which I am sure the House will be glad to bear, namely, that the Forestry Commission find that they will not want anything like the whole of this sum which they estimated they might require before the 31st of March. That was almost bound to occur when one was dealing with questions of acquiring property. One is continuing negotiations for property, and some titles are being considered, and so on, and it often happens that an actual conveyance cannot be signed, sealed and delivered as soon as one had hoped it would be. In connection with the main item, sub-head D, £62,500, we shall only, I think, actually discharge £25,000 in actual forestry operations, which means, for this purpose, the actual purchase and renting of land. I should like to give the House some little detail about the land that has already been purchased, the gifts of land which have been made to the Forestry Commission, and the places at which planting is actually already proceeding; and then, I think, I shall be able to say a word about the forestry education which is going on. Meanwhile, may I deal with one or two other points which my hon. Friend opposite (Major Murray) raised. He will remember that, when the House was considering the Forestry Bill, they approved of the idea that the general forestry policy of the Crown forests should be under the direction and control of the Forestry Commission, so that there might be no danger of there being two alternative and possibly conflicting policies being
run at the same time by public departments. Negotiations have been going on, and it seems almost certain that the Forestry Commission will obtain the direction of forestry policy in the Crown forests; and also it may be convenient that the actual ownership of the forestry parts of the Crown estates should be transferred to them. That has not quite been arranged yet, but it may be a convenient system of securing uniformity of direction and control.
With regard to the actual trees that are being planted, I admire the hon. Member's conservative love for indigenous trees, and he will be glad to hear that the ash, which, perhaps, he will regard as indigenous, is one of the trees which we are trying extensively to plant. It is, by the way, not a native tree. The larch, which has been grown in this country for some time, although it is not a native tree, is also being planted. I hope the hon. Member will not take any objection to exotics such as the Douglas fir and the Sitka spruce. He named the Japanese larch and the Corsican pine, but we think that the merits of the Douglas fir and the Sitka spruce have been sufficiently known for certain purposes—as for instance, on rather wind-swept high ground—and that they have been established sufficiently long in this country, to warrant their being planted oven on a fairly considerable scale by the Forest Authority.
The hon. Member was anxious, also, for an assurance with regard to the seed which we are now employing in nurseries. It is necessary to get on with nursery work as rapidy as possible, and, indeed, we should go faster than we are doing if there were a larger supply of forest tree seeds. Unfortunately, however, they have been very short in the last few years, and if we had really been dependent solely on home produced seed we should have been in a very bad way indeed. There has been an extraordinarily small crop of Scots pine seeds for some time, and Douglas seed, which is one of the most promising things that can be planted at the present time, is, unfortunately, so far as this country's supply is concerned, infested to an extraordinary extent with a small white maggot. In such seed as I have collected myself in Devonshire, nine out of ten of the seeds are thus infested, and other people have collected even worse samples than that. If we had not been able to get Douglas seed from
America, where it originally came from, and also from New Zealand, where it has been established for some time, we should be in a very poor way indeed.

Major MURRAY: My point was to ensure that the seedlings were obtained from seeds planted in this country.

Mr. ACLAND: I misunderstood. That is so. We have no intention of obtaining any seedlings or transplants from abroad, but we must depend on foreign countries to a considerable extent for our supply of seeds. We have sent an agent to Austria, and we are sending someone to Corsica as soon as we can. We can thus get round the trade. I would refer briefly to the actual work that is being done both in purchasing and leasing land and in getting forward on the land which has been given to us by patriotic persons. We have completed already three purchases. One of them is at Rendlesham, Suffolk. The purchased price was £17,986, which included some standing timber and a mill, which we have since sold for £10,300, leaving us to pay £7,600. That is for 2,500 acres of land. It works out at £3 per acre, freehold. The estate includes nine cottages and a very good farmhouse, and the purchase is a very good bargain. We are planting there, and shall have planted about 200 acres by 31st March. The second purchase is at Ampthill, in Bedfordshire; £2,500 for 460 acres, including 137 acres of agricultural land let at 30s. to 35s. per acre. If you capitalise that agricultural land at 50 years' purchase, you get a total very considerably higher than the amount we paid for the whole of the land, including the agricultural land. There we shall have planted nearly 200 acres by 31st March. At Brackley Hatch, Northamptonshire, we paid £2,550 for 524 acres, and 57½ acres of that is let is 45s. an acre. If you capitalise that agricultural land, it again exceeds the total paid for the whole estate, and we shall have planted about 60 acres of it by 31st March.
Now I come to the gifts. I would especially acknowledge the generosity of Major Leonard Brassey, who has leased us 830 acres of land at Apethorpe at a peppercorn rate. I should like also to acknowledge the kindness of Mr. Speaker. I wish he had been here to hear the House's appreciation of his kindness. He has presented to us 200 acres at Campsey Ash, which forms a very useful nucleus
of what we believe will be a very interesting and valuable forestry proposition. Mr. Speaker's patriotism has already affected some of his neighbours. Mr. Boynton, who owns the Sudbourne estate adjoining, has also presented a considerable area, so that the two places can be worked together. Then about planting. We have already started planting—as was said, we got into working order only about November last—at six places in England, and at six centres in Scotland. The centres in England are Eggesford, Devon; Rendlesham, Suffolk; Ampthill, Bedfordshire; Brackley and Apethorpe, North-ants; and Thornthwaite, Cumberland. The six places in Scotland are Craigmyle, Gagie, Borgie, Port Clair, Inchnacardoch, and South Laggan. I think there is one centre also in Ireland, but I forget the name of it for the moment.
Let me deal next with forestry education. We are practically founding foresters' schools, for training young workmen, in the main. There are schemes for giving suitable education to men at universities to become forests officers, and we shall, no doubt, have to assist the universities in that work and in their research work. For the moment, we are only financing schools for foresters, and of these we have now seven:—In the Forest of Dean, at Burley Lodge in the Now Forest, and at Chopwell in Northumberland; in Scotland at Beaufort, Achnacloich (Argyle), and at Birnam, near Perth, for disabled men. The one in Ireland is at Dundrum. I hope I may have covered the detail in which Members may be interested. I am bound to say that under the very able and active chairmanship of Lord Lovat I think we have made good progress in the few months at our disposal, and that it may be considered as really a going concern with good prospects for the future of the country.

Major W. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of acres planted this year and the number that it is intended to plant?

Mr. ACLAND: I am sorry I cannot say The number varies from week to week, and depends on the weather and on whether we get permission to begin on certain estates.

Major GLYN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any hard woods have been planted? As far as I gathered
from his statement soft woods have been planted. One of the facts we shall have to face is that there may be a demand for a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. I would suggest that we should take the island as a whole. Certain parts are suitable for soft woods and certain parts for hard wood, and if when the Forestry Commission starts it goes ahead with the planting of hard wood as well as soft, the afforestation of the whole island should be considered as one. With regard to the training of ex-service men, I should like to say that the training establishment near Perth is, I know, doing excellent work for disabled men. There is, however, a general impression amongst ex-service men that the Forestry Commission is in a position to offer employment now to large numbers of ex-service men, and that I believe not to be the case. I think it ought to be quite clearly explained that as afforestation increases in scope so the employment increases, but that in the initial stages there is not the room to give employment to ex-service men.

Sir J. D. REES: I did not gather how much of the £99,000 is to be expended on education, and whether it is the case that the taxpayer has now to pay the whole cost of educating young foresters or whether a subvention has to be paid. How much of this £99,000 is actually to be devoted to the education of foresters and why is it necessary to spend the money in that way? If forestry is good business on which the youth of the country might well be occupied, why cannot they educate themselves, as people educate themselves for other professions?

Mr. ACLAND: I entirely accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend that it would be folly to confine the operation of planting to soft woods. I fancy that probably the better way in the case of hard woods is to rely on a good acorn year rather than plant in a bad year. With regard to the employment of ex-service men, the amount of employment we can offer now is limited by the amount of plainting we can do, and that is limited by the amount of land we can acquire and still more so by the amount of seedlings available, because you cannot plant until three years after you have sown the seed. It is quite correct to say that employment will extend
as the land becomes available, and seed and seedlings for the actual planting. As to the question as to why should not persons actually pay for their own education in forestry, I would point that forestry students actually do the work in the woods in which the schools are situated, and where that is in the case of private proprietors, those proprietors pay the rate of wages settled by the Agricultural Wages Board for the work that is done. The charge falling on the State is only for maintenance and salaries of the schools in which these young men are collected. In the Crown woods, such as the New Forest, the young men being taught do the necessary work, and to that extent the whole cost, of their training does not fall on the authorities. It is the fact that there is a real deficiency of technically trained forest workmen and foremen, and even if it had not been possible to make this arrangement of getting work in exchange for training, it would have been necessary for the State to secure a real supply of skilled men.

Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: There is one question I should like to ask, and that is as to the very large areas which have been felled and now are lying waste all over the country and which will have to be planted again in the future. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if they are preparing nurseries for the seed beds, which will take three years in order to enable the plants to be planted at the end of that time. We all know that at present nursery gardeners and those who sell all these seeds have nothing like enough seed to plant, and it is up to the Government to see that the seeds are prepared ready for use in three years time.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what scope there is likely to be under the Forestry Commissioners for men of University or higher education in forestry? Several cases have been brought to my notice where ex-soldiers and officers were started by the Board of Education, and given grants and were turned down by the Commissioners on the plea that there was no prospect of finding employment in the forestry line after they had taken a degree. What prospects are there now or likely to be for men of this type of education in the way of research, experiment and so on in the forestry schools?

10.0 P.M.

Major Earl WINTERTON: I desire to ask whether, in the Vote which deals with forestry research, special attention is being directed to a most serious disease which has affected oak trees in Surrey, Sussex and Kent? For the last two or three years oak trees in those districts have been subjected to a form of moth plague which has absolutely stripped the trees of their leaves. Some few years ago I approached the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and asked him if he could send an expert down to investigate the very serious ravages caused by this moth. An expert was sent down from the Department and reported that the trees which were affected were trees naturally weakened in any case by the fact that they were planted in water-logged soil. I was not satisfied with that answer. In the part of the world where I live thousands of trees were affected, and in 1919 the attacks were much more serious than in any previous year, and through the counties I have named the trees were defoliated in the middle of May and June. The oak tree shows a second crop about raid-summer, and the defoliation was to some extent met by that new crop. I again wrote a very strong letter to the Department, and asked them to be good enough to send down an expert. They sent down their principal forestry expert, but although this gentleman did everything that could be done and investigated all the eases, and made an extensive tour, his report was as unsatisfying as the report in 1918. He said that very little was known of the real cause of these recurrent plagues, and he mentioned the interesting fact that in White's "Selborne" it was stated that at the end of the 18th century there was a similar visitation which lasted four or five years, and that the plague had actually killed some oak trees. I pointed, in my own woods, to trees unquestionably killed by these moths, but he said that was not so, that it was due to the waterlogged condition of the soil. As some of these trees were growing on banks I could hardly accept that report as conclusive. In my opinion thousands of pounds of potential timber value are being lost by the attacks of this moth, and I think a large portion of the sum allocated for research might go towards a chemical investigation into the causes of this
attack and what step, if any, can be taken to prevent it. It is having a most serious effect upon oak timber in the South of England, and I should think it is perfectly true to say that thousands and thousands of pounds' worth of valuable timber have already been destroyed by the ravages of this moth.

Mr. ACLAND: There will be ground available for the lining out. There is very little scope for the employment of men on forestry who have University degrees When the authority is finally established, it will perhaps be able to absorb four or five, possibly even six, men per annum, but it would be vain to hope that the Home Forestry Service can do more than that. There is greater scope in India, some scope in the Crown Colonies, considerable scope in the Dominions, some scope with companies which are interested in big forestry propositions abroad, but not much scope in the home service. Unfortunately many students were started in the expectation that they would quite easily get jobs—70, 80, or 100 of them—and it has been very sad to have to disappoint them, but our funds are so limited that it would have been quite unreasonable and wrong for us to fill up with people who must have pretty good salaries after that length of training above what we really required for the work in hand. We have made certain appointments, but I am glad to have the opportunity to say that those who are trained in our home universities cannot expect in more than quite a few instances to be absorbed into the higher ranks of the service.
With regard to the little green moth, the caterpillar of which destroys the leaves of the oak tree, I was aware of the interest of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) on the subject; I was aware that he had been told that the actual death of the oaks that he was particularly interested in was thought to be due to the bad conditions under which they were cultivated and to the waterlogged condition of his ground rather than to the actual ravages of the moth, because I think it is generally believed that, although the ravages of the moth are extremely serious, and have gone on and been known for years—the records go back beyond White's "Selborne," they go back to Cobbett, who dealt with the question—they do not very often cause the actual death of the tree. I believe
that what old Cobbett said is probably quite right—that where you have a late frost which nips the leaves when they are just coining out, that in a way half cooks them and withers and shrivels them and makes them a prey to the caterpillars. It is a perennial plague, for which nobody has discovered any possible cure so far; but where you have a series of years with late frosts, that predisposes the young shoots to the ravages of the caterpillar, and then you get a very large amount of caterpillars turning into chrysalides, and the chrysalides turning into moths, and a large number of eggs laid for next year, and a corresponding crop of caterpillars, then I am bound to say we do not regard it as one of the most likely or promising grounds for immediate research. To do anything like the disinfection of the oak woods of this country, which is what it would come to, would be an appalling task, probably necessitating the painting of every branch and twig and treating the ground underneath. We know it is a considerable plague, which undoubtedly checks the growth of the oak tree, and I can only promise to take note of the Noble Lord's suggestion, and bring it to the notice of those more competent to deal with it than I am.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does it not depend on the killing off of birds?

Mr. ACLAND: No.

Major COURTHOPE: I thought I should have been able to say I agreed with every word of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but I must bog to differ most profoundly from the last word that fell from his mouth. I am not a scientific expert in any sense of the word—I am only an interested amateur—but I have made some study of the ravages of tortrix vlridana the caterpillar of which does the damage. I think I can offer him some evidence which will induce him at least to reconsider his opinion that birds have nothing to do with it. I have no hesitation in saying with confidence that the ravages of the last three years of this caterpillar were due to the deliberate relaxation of the Wild Birds Protection Orders which took place in the War, owing to alarm on the part of the farmers about sparrows. I have no word to say in favour of the house sparrow,
and the farmers' complaint was really aimed at sparrows and pigeons, but slaughter fell upon the insect and caterpillar-eating birds to the very great damage, not only of our agricultural crops, but of our forests. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knows that on my property in Sussex the oak is of good quality. As a matter of fact, it was oak specially selected as being the best in the country for the purpose of the restoration of the roof of Westminster Hall, and so great was the importance attached to getting this oak that special steps had to be taken to protect me, because I refused to take the risk, as a Member of Parliament, of supplying it to the Government, and the oak from this property is now being, and has been for the last seven or eight years, used for the restoration of the roof of Westminster Hall. The bak of which I am speaking is not grown on water-logged soil, but fine soil. During the last three years—particularly in the last two years—the oak woods, where there is an absence of decayed or hollow-trees, have been absolutely stripped bare year by year by this pest, but in the park and round the house, where the old hollow trees have been preserved, and are full of starlings, and the birds have not suffered from the relaxation of the Wild Birds' Protection Orders, there has not been the slightest sign of defoliation, and during the nesting season, when the young birds are being fed, you can see processions of old starlings returning from the woods, which were full of these caterpillars, with bunches of the pests hanging from their beaks to feed their young. They kept the trees in which they lived clean from the beginning, and they have not suffered. I only mentioned this as proof positive—because it is proof positive to me—that the birds were an insurance against the ravages of the caterpillars. There may be certain contributory causes, but they do not produce the caterpillar, and the remedy, as we know, is the destruction of the caterpillar, and for that purpose we need the birds. I hope this will be borne in mind by the Forest Authority, and that they will take every step in their power to convince the other Departments concerned that with two or three exceptions wild birds need all the protection they can get. They should urge upon the sparrow clubs—that in many cases do so much harm—a
rule that the bringing in to sparrow clubs for payment of the heads and eggs of the birds that are not the destructive ones, should be a definite disqualification, and that the schoolboy who brings in the head or egg should lose marks instead of gaining them. I can see no other way of preventing the destruction of the wrong bird.
To turn from this subject for a moment to the general policy of the Forestry Commission, I should like to preface my few sentences by saying that I suppose if there is anyone in this House who may be expected to criticise the Forest Authority it is myself. I happen to be president of the two organised Forestry bodies in this country whose instinct and nature it is to be critical of authority and impatient that more is not done in a shorter time. I have also been asked to fill the position of Chairman of the Consultative Committee of Forestry for England under the Forestry Act, and my duty in that capacity is essentially that of a critic. I only say that because I hope these prefatory words will give a weight which perhaps otherwise would be absent from what I am going to say here. It is this: I have been in the closest touch with the work, not only of the interim Forest Authority before the Forestry Commission came into being, but with that of the Forestry Commissioners since they commenced their official existence. Lord Lovat and his colleagues have invariably put all their cards on the table, and I believe I am fully informed of all their doings. From the point of view of the critic I can say that their beginnings have been absolutely sound. We have seen in the Press complaints that they have not produced a new world in forestry in no time at all, and so on. They would have made a great mistake if they had attempted to rush their work. I believe they are absolutely right and deserve the confidence of this House for the care and caution with which they have approached the difficult problems they have to face. I hope the House will support the Forestry Commissioners so long as they proceed on the sound lines on which they have commenced. I trust when criticism is offered it will be constructive and helpful rather than destructive and hindering. It is with this desire that I have intervened for a few moments, and occupied the time of the House.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir J. D. REES: On this Vote there is provision for extra clerks to do extra work. May I suggest that among that extra work they should do something for a class whose claims are rarely represented in this House, I mean parents. It is extraordinarily difficult for a parent to discover from public offices anything connected with the methods of entry into the public service. First he has to mark down some public servant from one of many books of reference; then he has to stalk him to his lair in one of the deep recesses of the many public offices near here; or he has to lie in w[...]t for him in his hour of leisure—it may be at luncheon at his club—and when all these processes have been fulfilled he still is in doubt very often as to what he shall do with his off-spring. This is really a serious matter. Owing to the War it has been more difficult than ever to follow all the varied regulations which guard and sometimes repel entrance to the public service. It is necessary that they should be simplified, and it is extremely desirable that amongst these extra clerks some of them should devote their energies to preparing a plain, clear, straightforward, and ambiguous statement as to the best methods of securing entry into the Civil Service and of enabling the younger generation to qualify themselves for admission to the various branches of that service. If my hon. Friend can give me some assurance that he will issue instructions to that effect I, for one, will be very grateful.

Mr. HOGGE: There is provision in this Estimate on account of the increased number of attendances for examination of demobilised soldiers, and I want, if I may, to get some information from my hon. Friend of the reasons that govern the action of the Civil Service Commission in this matter. The House will remember that when a large number of men joined the Army they were promised that when they came back they would have facilities to enter the public service. As far as I can gather, there is one restriction which has been placed upon these men which weighs very heavily in a large number of cases, and that restriction is one by which the Civil Service Commission refuse
the right to a demobilised soldier to sit for these examinations unless he has had what they call continuous education up to the age of 18. The whole point depends on the definition of the words "continuous education". In some cases which have come to my knowledge it has "been laid down that a lad who, after leaving school at 16, has completed a couple of years in an evening continuation school, or in technical classes, has been held to be not entitled to be considered as a boy continuously educated up to the age of 18, and, therefore, he is deprived of the right to sit for the Civil Service examination. Then there is a second point, and that is the question of the colleges and institutions which are recognised by the Civil Service Commission as qualified. I have known quite a number of cases in which a student who has been given to understand that he can continue his education at a certain college has, after working there for a period of six months or a year preparing for the examination, found that the college is not qualified, and the man who has served has thereby lost a considerable amount of time. Of course, examiners have been put on because of the numerous candidates. Obviously, there must be more numerous candidates after demobilisation than before. But what is the real reason of depriving any man who is eligible to pass the examination from sitting for the examination? Why should it be that unless a man passes through certain definite channels he is not eligible to sit for the branches of the Civil Service that ought to be open to open competition? I should like to have some substantial reason why, after these men have done their share of the bargain, the Government should step in and say, unless they have had what they call continuous education up to 18 they are not entitled to sit.

Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the figure my hon. Friend alluded to, of course his assumption is correct. The extra money has had to be spent on extra examiners because the number of those who present themselves for examination has been a great deal larger than was anticipated when the original Estimate was made up. With regard to what he said about certain colleges not conferring certain rights on a candidate, if he cares to bring any case
before me—for although I have had many letters in connection with the work of the Civil Service Commission I have no complaints on this particular score, or if he brings under my notice any educational institution which he thinks is being treated unfairly—I shall be only too pleased to look into it. With regard to the question of restriction, of course there are two sides to the matter. The number of eligible candidates compared with the number of all posts which are open have been out of all proportion, and it was a matter of considerable difficulty for the experts who went into this matter, members of the Civil Service Commission and members of the Civil Service who are most familiar with staff requirements and appointments to staff, to try to devise such limitations with regard to age and attainments and so forth as to give the fairest chance to the greatest number to obtain positions in the Civil Service, bearing in mind at the same time that if no limitation is put on, the whole system of examination might be swamped by the numbers who would compete and the number of disappointments must have been correspondingly great. I was very much struck by some of the answers I have had to give where the numbers that come up to compete for the Civil Service are very great and for the different classes of examinations that are held the vacancies are very small. I can assure my hon. Friend that in all these matters of restriction, whether it is with regard to what he calls continuous education or with regard to age, there is nothing in the limitation that prejudices ex-Service men in any way.

Mr. HOGGE: indicated dissent.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think so. I have said that on the point raised by the hon. Member I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him. I have not come across cases where the ex-Service man, qua ex-Service man, has been prejudiced. I believe that the rules which have been made give the widest possible opportunity to competitors, having regard to the limited number of places available.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The House is very much obliged for the careful explanation, but surely this is a matter that might have been answered by the Minister of Education. This is a question of great importance to the people
concerned, seeing that ex-Service men are being prejudiced. I know that the Minister of Education is looking after two Departments, the Education Department and the India Office; and, while I do not suggest any lack of courtesy on his part, I do think that some protest should be made against the continued absence of Ministers when Estimates are under discussion and subjects are raised which require explanation.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HOGGE: There is one item in this Vote under Sub-head (a) which suggests that some explanation is necessary. A sum of £665 is to be provided for increased requirements for temporary clerical assistance owing to prolonged absence of some of the staff in His Majesty's Forces and in other Departments. It is about a year and a half since the Armistice. Why are these members so long absent from the Department? Have you got them back now, and are we likely to save on this head after 31st March?

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member will recognise when I point out that the original Estimates were prepared a year ago, that it was quite impossible to say how and at what place the service Departments would be demobilised. Demobilisation went on all through last year, and in a few cases is only being completed now. I have no reason to believe that this particular portion of the Sub-head will appear again. I would ask the House to remember that this really covers the case of men who might reasonably have been expected to ask to be demobilised promptly, but for whom, owing to various delays during the 12 months, it has been found necessary to provide in making up the accounts which will clear the cost to this Department until 31st March.
Ninth Resolution agreed to.
Tenth Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HOGGE: In this Vote there is an increase of no less than £35,000 for increases in staff consequent upon new
services undertaken by the Office of Works subsequent to the preparation of the original Estimate. The Supplementary Estimate does not say whether these are temporary posts or whether this £35,000 is the foundation stone of a large new increase of Estimates consequent upon these new services. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the new services, how many of the staff are employed on account of them, whether any of them are permanent or whether there is any prospect of a contraction of the sum under this sub-head?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I am glad to give the information asked for. The demands are due to an increase of staff, mainly in the architectural division, where there is an increase of five architects, 17 assistant architects, and 40 draftsmen. The new services for which the staff are appointed are as follows:—Ministry of Labour—Acquisition and adaptation of factories and hospitals for the training of demobilised non-commissioned officers and men of His Majesty's forces. This work necessitates two architects, six assistant architects and draftsmen. The next service is Ministry of Pensions, training centres and hospitals for which more than £570,000 was included in a Supplemental Estimate last July. This work necessitated an additional staff of two architects, six assistant architects, and twenty draftsmen. For the Ministry of Health my Department has been asked to undertake duties in connection with the conversion of houses into flats in certain boroughs, which involved an addition. of one architect and five assistant architects. The total is five architects, 17 assistant architects, and 40 draftsmen. In reference to the question whether the increase is only temporary, I do not look forward to any immediate reduction, but rather the other way. The work of my Department is continually increasing. I looked it up the other day, and the increase is 150 per cent. on the pre-war figure. The House will realise that much of the work of all these now services—hospitals, sanatoria, training centres, etc.—is technical work which falls upon my Department, and, of course, you must provide an adequate staff to carry it out well. I am fairly well acquainted with the detail work of
my Department, and I can assure the Committee that the people who are getting these salaries are doing a remarkable amount of very good work, and are not getting excessive remuneration.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: Everybody knows that during the War the staff of the Office of Works increased enormously, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, since the Armistice was signed, a very considerable number of the temporary staff has been discharged? If not, then these architects, assistant architects, and draughtsmen might easily be turned on to the work to which he has referred. It seems to me that stricter supervision ought to have been exercised over the staff that the right hon. Gentleman had during the War. Of course, if any large number of them had been discharged since the Armistice it will account for the taking on of the extra temporary staff to do this work, but, if he has at present the staff that he had during the War, and particularly during the last two years of the War, then I fail to see the necessity for increasing the staff of architects, assistant architects, and draughtsmen to meet the demands of the other Departments of the State.

Sir A. MOND: My hon. Friend is confusing two entirely different things. I am asking for a Supplementary Estimate for our establishment. A great deal of the work done by the Office of Works during the War was not borne upon the Estimates of my Department at all; most of the work referred to was done by the Ministry of Munitions, whose salaries and expenses never came into my Vote and therefore would form no basis of comparison.

Mr. WILSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the architects employed by his Department during the War have been retained?

Sir A. MOND: Certainly, a considerable number have been retained.

Major BARNETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some information as to how far this additional staff is housed in the parks? During the War the residents in the neighbourhood of Regent's Park saw the Park occupied for necessary purposes, but since the Armistice they have seen a mass of new buildings put up. These parks are intended for public use and ought not to be occupied permanently in this way.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this Resolution. There are no buildings on this Estimate.

Major BARNETT: I was asking my right hon. Friend to say how far these people are housed in the park.

Sir A. MOND: None of this additional staff, so far as I know, have any relation to this park.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Major GLYN: I rise to ask whether I should be in order in drawing attention to the salary of the Under-Secretary of Dublin Castle.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a Supplementary Estimate.

Major GLYN: I thought he would have been entitled to a war bonus.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member desire to move to reduce the war bonus?

Major GLYN: Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is too late. I have put the Question.

JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lord E. Talbot): I beg to move, "That the Consideration of Resolutions 17 to 43 be now adjourned."
I understand it would be convenient to the House if we started to-morrow with the Law Charges Vote.

Resolutions 17 to 43 read a second time, and postponed.

Postponed Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres-Monsell].

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.